- Class Actions
- Class Actions Defense
- Labor & Employment Law
Kenyon College, A.B., cum laude, 1979
Tulane University, J.D., cum laude, 1984
1984, Louisiana; 2007, Texas; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth and Federal Circuits; U.S. Supreme Court
Defense Research Institute.
Member, The Maritime Lawyer, 1982-1984. Contributing Editor, The Developing Labor Law, 3rd ed. Arbitrator, FINRA Dispute Resolution. Chapter Editor: The Family and Medical Leave Act, BNA. Author: Ogletree Deakins Blog Post, "New Poster for Hospitality Employers in Louisiana" - August 2, 2016. Author: Ogletree Deakins Blog Post, "First Circuit Approves Use of FWW Method for Pay That Varies Due to Performance-Based Commissions" - March 3, 2016. Author: Ogletree Deakins Blog Post, "Liquidated Damages: A Viable Alternative to Noncompetition Agreements in Louisiana?" - January 19, 2016.
Dunkel v Warrior Energy Services Corp., 304 F.R.D. 193 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (denying motion for nationwide collective action); DeMolle v CHS Inc., No. 12-3030 E.D. La. 2014) (dismissing action for failure to comply with FRCP 4); Williams v Career Systems Devel. Corp., 2013 WL 123641 (E.D. La. 2013) (granting motion to dismiss and dismissing action on limitations grounds); Allen v Coil Tubing Services, LLC, 846 F. Supp.2d 678 (S.D. Tex. 2012), aff'd, 755 F.3d 279 (2014) (part of team before district court obtaining dismissal of portion of case pursuant to Motor Carrier Act exemption to FLSA); Harding v. Raising Cane's USA, LLC, 55 So.3d 837 (La. App. Ct. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 63 So.2d. 999 (La. 2011) (appellate court affirmed summary dismissal in favor of client); Garza v Smith International, Inc., 17 W & H Cases 2d 764 (S.D. Tex. 2011)(part of team which obtained summary judgment for client applying Motor Carrier Act exemption to defeat action for overtime); Farrell v HRI Lodging, Inc., 17 W&H Cases2d 1412 (E.D. La. 2011) (granting summary judgment to employer and dismissing FMLA claim because employee had not worked for client long enough to be eligible for FMLA leave); Patterson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 10 So.3d 794 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009)(affirming denial of leave to amend complaint because claims barred by statute of limitations); Finley v FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 04-2142 (E.D. La. Oct. 29, 2008) (Granting Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for non-prosecution); Baker v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 278 Fed.Appx. 322 (5th Cir. 2008); CHS Inc. and PACE Local 4-447, 120 LA 775 (Allen 2004) (upholding discharge of employee for violating anti-moonlighting provision of contract); Brown v. Historic Restoration, Inc., Case No. 2003-18758 (Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans)(granting employer's motion to enforce severance agreement); Roberts v. Salton, Inc., Case No. 02-875 (M.D. La.) (granting motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff's vocational rehabilitation expert); CHS Inc. and PACE Local 4-447, FMCS 02-0808 (Overstreet 2002) (upholding employer's scheduling practices to minimize contractual overtime); Livaccari v. Alden Engineering, Inc., 808 So.2d 383 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2000) (rendering judgment for employer holding employee did not state cause of action against employer for intentional tort); Johnson v. Historic Restoration, Inc., Civil Action No. 98-3088 (E. D. La. July 19, 1999)(dismissing action based on employee's failure to serve Complaint timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4); Lewis v RPS, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-1196 (M.D. La. May 17, 2000) (dismissing action against employer based on statute of limitations); Dreher v. Sverdrup Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-0011 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 1, 1996) (defense verdict for employer dismissing retaliation claim under False Claims Act); Brannan v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 526 So.2d 1101 (La. 1988) (filed amicus curiae brief in case upholding Louisiana's employment-at-will rule); Williams v. Conoco, Inc., 860 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding Louisiana's one year statute of limitations period applies to claim of employment discrimination under Louisiana.
Disclaimer: No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. The testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Any result that the endorsed lawyer or law firm may achieve on behalf of one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate that similar results can be obtained for other clients. Past success cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Martindale-Hubbell® does not undertake to develop a Client Review Rating or Peer Review Rating for all firms and/or lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed as unfavorable. Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for and will not be liable for the content and accuracy of the individual Reviews and the aggregated Reviews.
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com