Appellate Successes
Appeals ·
2000 ·
2001 ·
2002 ·
2003 ·
2004 ·
2005 ·
2006 ·
2007
Aaron Maduff handled his first employment appeal (a case handled before the District Court until the last minute by other counsel) within 6 months of being licensed to practice. Though that case resulted in a split opinion in the employer’s favor it was an argument that needed to be made. Over all, through careful case selection and thorough preparation, the firm has prevailed in roughly 2/3 of its employment appeals sending apparently lost cases back to the District Court for trial or preserving a jury verdict. (Compare this to a national average of roughly 8% of cases won at the appellate courts by employees.) Some of those appeals are described below.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
05-2355
(The Question of Union Liability)
In 2003, the 7th Circuit had apparently ruled that unions could not be held liable for discrimination by its members when they are on the job. In this case, our client sued the union because its members refused to provide her on the job training and because the union refused to issue her temporary mechanics permits which would have permitted her to work at full wages. The District Court found that the union member mechanics had discriminated against her, but that because that discrimination took place on the job, the union could not be held liable under the 2003 case. The 7th Circuit reversed the case finding that where training is involved, a union could be held liable and should be held liable in this case.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
02-3201
(The Punitive Damages Challenge)
Defendant claimed that the $270,000 award of punitive damages against it by a jury was unwarranted because its senior management was unaware of the retaliatory acts of its employees. We argued to the Court that the employer had lied to the EEOC and that this was sufficient to justify the punitive damages award. The 7th Circuit agreed. The case has since become a major precedent in determining the reasonableness of compensatory (pain and suffering) and punitive damage awards.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
00 - 2884
(The Biased Juror)
On April 19, 2001, the Seventh Circuit Reversed a Jury Verdict in favor of the Defendant acknowledging that our client may not have received a fair trial because one of the jurors may not have been impartial. In so doing, the Court explained the legal standards for striking jurors for bias. As a result, this race discrimination case against a major Chicago law firm Defendant was set for a new trial.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
98-1563
(A Clarification in the Law)
In this unusual case, the District Court determined that a phone call to the police by the company falsely alleging that our client was armed and dangerous was not related to our client’s employment and therefore not actionable in court. We argued that the law prohibits retaliation against current employees regardless of whether the retaliatory act is related to the employment. Clarifying earlier opinions, the 7th Circuit held that where the employee is still employed, the retaliatory acts are illegal and actionable.
Appeals ·
2000 ·
2001 ·
2002 ·
2003 ·
2004 ·
2005 ·
2006 ·
2007
| 
