A woman from Telford came to us believing she had been fired from a large company in retaliation for taking Family and Medical Leave to care for her daughter, who had a severe disability. We filed suit in Federal Court under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and were opposed by a large Philadelphia firm that put two lawyers on the case. The defendant contended that the client’s allegedly extensive history of work-related discipline, and not her taking of family leave, was the real reason for her termination. After discovery, the defendant tried to have the case thrown out of Court. We responded by citing the information we had learned during the case. The Court ruled in our favor, and held that the matter should proceed to trial. Thereafter, the defendant, who had offered nothing to settle the case, made an offer to settle. Following intense but quick negotiations, we resolved the case to our client’s satisfaction. As a result of our representation, she suffered no loss of income, and indeed received more than she would have had she continued to be employed by the defendant.

A 65 year-old man from North Wales called and told me that the large Massachusetts company he worked for had given him an ultimatum – retire or be fired. Working behind the scenes, we advised him on how to deal with the ultimatum through the use of e-mails. He eventually declined the retirement “offer” and was immediately fired. We filed suit in Federal Court for Age Discrimination under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and were opposed by a prominent Massachusetts firm that put two lawyers on the case. The defendant contended that our client’s alleged poor sales performance, and not his age, was the determinative factor in the termination decision. Following discovery, the defendant sought Mediation before a Federal Judge. The Mediation was successful, and our client received more money as a result of our representation than he would have had he continued to work for the company for another two years. He also received all of his retirement benefits and accrued vacation pay.

A woman from East Norriton contacted us and said she believed that she had been fired because she had complained about not receiving overtime. She had been employed by one of the largest mortgage companies in the World. We sought pre-litigation settlement, but the employer offered nothing. We filed suit in Federal Court, alleging that she had been the victim of retaliation for asserting her rights to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Not surprisingly, the defendant was represented by one of the largest firms in America, located in Philadelphia which immediately put two lawyers on the case. The defendant contended that the client was fired as part of a reduction in force and that she was less capable then other employees who were retained. Following discovery, a miniscule offer was made. We rejected it and the defendant filed a motion in Court trying to get the case thrown out. We filed a response, citing all of the evidence we had learned during discovery. After receiving our response, the defendant called, and within one week had offered a settlement that was six times as large as any offer it had made before.

A man from Exton advised that he was being sued for violating a Non Compete Agreement with his former employer. The man had been fired when he refused to sign a new Non Compete that the company mandated that he sign. After his employment ended, he went to work for a direct competitor of the employer, and was able to take more than $100,000 in business with him within three months. The employer, one of the largest distributors of corporate forms in America, hired one of the oldest and best regarded firms in Chester County to represent its interest, immediately placing two senior partners on the file. We contended that the Non Compete was unenforceable because the client had been terminated because he refused to sign the Non Compete.  We argued further that the Non Compete only applied if he was fired for good cause. The employer refused to back off, probably emboldened by the success it had had throughout the Country enforcing similar Non Competes under similar circumstances. It argued that the employee’s decision not to sign the new Non Compete was tantamount to him quitting his job. It further argued that, even if the Non Compete was unenforceable, our client had misappropriated confidential business information which he had used to take away clients of the employer after his employment ended. Following expedited discovery, we proceeded to a Hearing in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. Within one week of the conclusion of the 6 hour Hearing, the Court ruled in our client’s favor. He remains gainfully employed with his new employer, and continues to service the clients that he had brought with him upon his departure from the former employer.

A man from Malvern came to us and stated that he had been fired because he had missed too much time from work. He had filed for Unemployment Compensation benefits, which had been denied. We reviewed the circumstance, and determined that his absence resulted from a serious health condition, and was therefore protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act. He was unaware of his rights under the Act, and there was an issue as to whether he had given appropriate notice of his need for leave to his employer. When I showed up with my client at the Unemployment Hearing, the employer was surprised – and unrepresented by counsel. I was able to obtain excellent testimony on the record from the unprepared employer. We won the Unemployment Hearing. Then, with the transcribed record of the proceedings in hand, we demanded that the employer compensate our client for violating his FMLA rights. Seeing that the record created at the Unemployment Hearing was clearly in our favor, the employer immediately paid a handsome settlement, and we never had to even file suit.

Three women from Pottstown who worked for a very large hotel chain came to us with allegations that they had been the victim of Sexual Harassment by a manager at the hotel. All three of three of the women had been fired for what appeared to be legitimate reasons. We engaged in an extensive analysis as to exactly what exactly the manager had done to each of the women, and determined that a definite pattern of harassment existed. We also concluded that the manager’s conduct, which was observed by but not disciplined by his superior, created a Hostile Work Environment intolerant to the rights of women. We therefore concluded that each of the women had a Title VII claim for hostile work environment, and that each of the terminations was a sham. We also concluded that one of the victims had a claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment (i.e. she had been required to exchange sexual favors for job security). We prepared a very detailed Complaint, which we filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. At the fact-finding conference before PHRC, we reached settlements in all three cases that totaled in the six-figures. Our clients were spared the anguish of having to relive their gut-wrenching experiences in Court, and received what they viewed as fair compensation for the wrongs that had visited upon them.