Successes in the Year 2006
Appeals ·
2000 ·
2001 ·
2002 ·
2003 ·
2004 ·
2005 ·
2006 ·
2007
With two attorneys joining as of counsel and an increase in the total legal staff to ten, 2006 showed dramatic growth for the firm. During the course of the year, Aaron Maduff was granted a license by the Supreme Court of Ohio, was named an Illinois Super Lawyer for 2007, and was elected to the Executive Board of the San Francisco based National Employment Lawyers Association. With bar admissions in some 17 jurisdictions in two countries, one could drive from Minneapolis to Pittsburgh and back through Canada and always be in one such jurisdiction. In addition to the Mexican severance case from the prior year, the firm added clients from Europe and Asia, truly becoming an International Employment Law Firm.
As discussed below, the firm’s litigation success for 2006 was just as dramatic. In a resplendent opinion drafted by one of the Federal Judiciary’s most respected jurists a mere 33 days after Aaron’s oral argument, the 7th Circuit reversed course on the law of discrimination as it related to unions. And in August, the firm obtained a $989,000 judgment in Michigan.
The following cases came to verdict, judgment, or settlement in the year 2006. Please note that cases can take anywhere from a few months to several years to reach their conclusions.
United States District Court (C.D.Ill.)
05 C 3044
(Family and Medical Leave Act and Title VII Sex Discrimination)
Our client was the Director of Information Systems for a newspaper. Upon her return from taking an approved FMLA leave she was immediately terminated, allegedly as part of a reduction in force—a reduction of one, her—and apparently a male was subsequently promoted into her position. We settled the case to her satisfaction.
United States District Court (N.D.Ill.)
06 C 0485
(Overtime – Fair Labor Standards Act)
Our client was a construction laborer who had worked for two separate companies in the last three years, both of whom refused to pay his overtime, stating that he was not eligible for it. We settled the case shortly after filing the complaint.
Independent Due Process Hearing
March 1, 2006
Our client was a coach running a team in an independent league. He was accused of recruiting violations when he gave a motivational speech to student athletes. The organization had a multi-level disciplinary procedure including a due process hearing. We presented testimony at that hearing and the following opinion was issued (the parties names and some identifying information have been redacted):
We, the appeals committee, after a thorough review find [client] innocent of any alleged recruiting violations. Furthermore we feel that the allegations were unfounded, without one shred of evidence from an eye witness. The defense produced numerous coaches and student athletes, in attendance at the session, who stated that [client] came in, introduced himself, gave a motivational speech, and left flyers for the athletes at the door. Allegations that statements by [client] to the effect that student athletes should leave their club teams and stay together and play for [client’s team], were repudiated by first-person testimony and therefore found to be unsubstantiated.
In conclusion we, the appeals committee, rule that [client] is innocent of the alleged recruiting violations and repeal the sanctions previously imposed. We thank the witnesses in attendance at the appeals meeting for their time and effort in this matter.
United States District Court (W.D. Penn.)
06 0256
(Defense of Non-Compete, Trade Secret Violation, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
Our client had been a salesman in the coatings industry. After leaving his company he was accused of violating a non-compete agreement, using trade secrets, and committing computer fraud. We vociferously denied these accusations and resolved the case against him in roughly one month.
In addition to these settlements of cases pending in court, other cases have been settled while they were still pending before the EEOC and IDHR.
United States District Court (W.D.Mich.)
06 C 310
(Disability Retaliation)
This case presented a fascinating twist on the Americans With Disabilities Act. Our client, disabled himself, was a counselor for a community mental health center. Among his clients were students at a nearby college, one of whom, our client felt, was being denied accommodations as required by the ADA’s public accommodations section. By pure coincidence, our client’s boss was on the board of trustees of the college and terminated our client when he assisted the student in filing an ADA claim with the Department of Education. The case resulted in the entry of a judgment for $989,602.
Independent Due Process Hearing
December 7, 2006
In this Due Process hearing, our client, who had transferred schools, was denied eligibility by the athletic association on the strength of accusations of misconduct leveled by school officials. The athletic association initially determined that as a result of those accusations, our client should have been serving a suspension even at his new school. After a hearing before a full board of more than 20 members, the association reversed its ruling, and rejecting the initial determination that our client had engaged in any misconduct warranting a denial of eligibility.
Appeals ·
2000 ·
2001 ·
2002 ·
2003 ·
2004 ·
2005 ·
2006 ·
2007
| 
