|
Services Available
Winston & Strawn has nearly 70 partners and associates who work exclusively in the area of labor and employment law. Our attorneys have appeared in many state courts and virtually every federal court in the country, the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other local, state, and federal agencies. We provide national and international assistance to our clients by tapping into resources from five of our seven U.S. offices, as well as from our Paris office.
Representative Matters
Miller v. American Airlines
American Airlines
Winston & Strawn represented American Airlines in an EEOC claim brought by flight engineers after the airline eliminated all remaining flight engineer positions in 2002. In the 1980s, American had entered into an agreement with the flight engineers' union that guaranteed that should flight engineer positions be eliminated, any then-current flight engineer would be guaranteed another comparably paying position with the airline until the flight engineer reached normal retirement age. The plaintiffs, all in their seventies, claimed that they were discriminated against because they were not provided comparably paying positions by the airline upon the elimination of the flight engineer position, even though they were offered other positions with the airline with lower compensation. An arbitrator concluded that under the union agreement any right to a comparably paying job ceased at the normal retirement age of 65 years old. The plaintiffs then sought to completely reverse their claim, stating instead that the union agreement violated ADEA on its face because it treated employees differently based on their age. The Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to American, holding that the plaintiffs' claim that the agreement was facially discriminatory was outside the scope of, and contradictory to, the plaintiffs' EEOC charges. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Employee v. Major Pharmaceutical Company
Winston & Strawn represented a major pharmaceutical company in an age discrimination claim before the Central District of California. The plaintiff alleged a pattern of widespread selective enforcement of safety rules against older employees to obstruct them from attaining full retirement benefits. After the second session of the plaintiff's deposition, the plaintiff was confronted with damaging impeachment evidence uncovered during Winston's investigation of the matter. The plaintiff and his counsel voluntarily offered to dismiss the claim with prejudice in exchange for our client's agreement not to pursue fees and costs, and our client agreed to this resolution.
Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks
Harte-Hanks Shoppers Inc. / Penny Saver
Winston & Strawn filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of client Employers Group on behalf of Harte-Hanks Shoppers in support of its practice of reimbursing employees for their job-related expenses through increased wages or commissions, as opposed to direct reimbursement for actual costs. The California Supreme Court upheld this practice.
University of Chicago Argonne Laboratories v. Bannon and Burton
UChicago Argonne, LLC
Winston & Strawn represented Argonne Laboratories in a lawsuit brought in the Northern District of Illinois by two former female employees for national origin and gender discrimination based on theories of hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The plaintiffs alleged that their former supervisor made comments regarding their gender and national origin, prevented them from receiving certain promotions, and ultimately discharged them in retaliation for their complaints. The Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to Argonne, and a unanimous panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on all counts.
Psychemedics Corporation v. Diagnostixx of California et al.
Immunalysis Corporation
Winston & Strawn labor and employment attorneys represented Immunalysis (Diagnostixx of California d/b/a Immunalysis Corporation and Haptenics Corporation d/b/a Kinex Company), which manufactures drug test kits for laboratories that test bodily fluids and hair for various drugs of abuse in a breach of contract arbitration brought by Psychemedics Corporation, a publicly traded company that provides drug testing services. In 1997, Immunalysis entered into a contract with Psychemedics through which Immunalysis agreed to manufacture radioactive isotopes for Psychemedics' drug testing. The contract also contained a clause that permits Psychemedics to reserve a certain antibody used for its marijuana drug tests for the express purpose of purchasing that antibody from Immunalysis in the near future. Ten years later, faced with increasing competition from Immunalysis' other customers, Psychemedics filed an arbitration in Los Angeles in which it asserted that the marijuana antibody reserve clause permits it to place on hold, without any commitment to purchase, all of Immunalysis' antibodies for the five drugs for which most testing is done (marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, opiates, PCP). Since antibodies are integral components of drug test kits, Psychemedics effectively sought to preclude Immunalysis from manufacturing kits for any of these drugs. Following extensive briefing and a three-day arbitration, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of Immunalysis, holding that the contractual clause in dispute, which Psychemedics had drafted, was entirely void. The decision represents a significant victory for our client. If Psychemedics had prevailed, Immunalysis would have been unable to manufacture its best-selling products and would have lost more than 70 percent of its revenue stream. Immunalysis brought counterclaims against Psychemedics for fraudulent inducement, interference with contractual relations, antitrust violations, and unfair business practices; however, for strategic reasons it opted not to present evidence to establish these claims at the arbitration. At Immunalysis' request, the arbitrator dismissed the claims without prejudice, thus giving Immunalysis the ability to pursue the claims against Psychemedics in the future.
Johnson v. Lumenos, Inc.
Lumenos, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented WellPoint affiliate Lumenos, Inc. in a race discrimination and retaliation action in the brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiff, a former customer service representative of Lumenos, asserted claims under Title VII and Section 1981 and state tort claims challenging his termination. When the plaintiff refused to participate in good faith in the discovery process, Lumenos moved to compel and asked the court for sanctions against the plaintiff. The court granted Lumenos' motion to compel, struck the plaintiff's damages claims, and awarded sanctions to Lumenos in the form of attorneys' fees. The court then granted Lumenos' motion for summary judgment and dismissed each of the plaintiff's claims.
Brian Fulka v. Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc.
Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation,
Winston & Strawn represented Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation (NMFF) in a case brought by a former employee in the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff claimed that NMFF had interfered with his taking of intermittent FMLA leave and had terminated him in retaliation for taking such leave. Winston attorneys argued that the plaintiff's interference claim must be dismissed because he was granted all leave that he requested. We also argued that his retaliation claim should be dismissed because he was not meeting NMFF's legitimate expectations at the time he was terminated. The court agreed with Winston's arguments for NMFF, dismissing the case in its entirety on our motion for summary judgment.
Kevin R. Ryan v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in a lawsuit brought by a former employee of a company acquired by UL claiming wrongful termination and violation of whistleblower protection laws. The plaintiff was terminated in 2003 after he wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) — the governmental entity in charge of the official investigation into the terror attacks of September 11 — and sent this letter from his UL e-mail account. In the letter, Ryan opined that the World Trade Towers had been brought down by explosives intentionally placed at the base of the buildings. He also sent a copy of the letter to a group dedicated to proving the U.S. government had blown up the towers. The letter, which was posted to the internet, bore the plaintiff's UL title, suggesting that he was speaking on behalf of the company. UL terminated him because his letter appeared to attribute his accusations to UL, and it harmed UL’s relationship with NIST, a client of UL. In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a complaint against UL in Indiana state court alleging wrongful termination under Indiana commom law. UL removed the case to the Southern District of Indiana. After UL moved to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add a claim under a little-used Indiana statute protecting certain whistleblowing activities by employees of private employers. The court granted UL’s motion to dismiss the common law claim with prejudice but dismissed the statutory claim without prejudice. The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was denied by the court for being untimely and insufficient to cure the complaint’s deficiencies. The court then entered an order dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims against UL with prejudice.
Blackwell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc.
SkyWest Airlines Inc.
Winston & Strawn recently secured a significant victory for SkyWest Airlines, Inc. when the Southern District of California denied a former employee's motion for class certification in a case filed as a wage and hour class action. The plaintiff asked the Southern District Court of California to certify a class of nearly 4,000 current and former SkyWest customer service agents in California into five subclasses, one for each of her various claims. The plaintiff alleged the airline violated state and federal laws by denying meal breaks, issuing inaccurate wage statements, imposing unlawful alternative workweek schedules resulting in unpaid overtime, refusing to pay overtime for voluntary shift trades, and deducting wages to pay for travel benefits without express authorization. The court rejected the plaintiff's efforts to certify even one of the proposed classes, a decision that sharply retreats from the current trend in California state and federal courts to routinely certify similar wage and hour class actions. The court found that individual issues predominated over common questions within each of the five proposed classes.
Rivas v. Presidential Plaza Management Corp., et al.
Winston & Strawn represented a residential and commercial property management company in a matter brought by an apartment building handyman alleging disability discrimination and worker's compensation violations. Our attorneys brought a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the New Jersey Superior Court, on the grounds that the claims should be arbitrated pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
Medtronic v. Mark Peterman & Abbott Spine
Abbott Laboratories
Winston & Strawn represented Abbott Spine in a non-compete case brought by Medtronic in Minnesota state court. Medtronic obtained an ex parte TRO from the state court without any prior notice to Abbott Spine. We immediately sought and obtained a narrowing of the ex parte TRO, enabling Abbott Spine's new employee to begin work, and thereafter achieved a favorable settlement.
Cozzi v. Metal Management, Inc.
Albert Cozzi, Frank Cozzi and Gregory Co
Winston & Strawn represented Albert Cozzi (former CEO), Frank Cozzi (former president), and Greg Cozzi (former vice-president) in a non-compete case against their former employer, Metal Management, Inc. A separation and release agreement provided for two severance payments to the Cozzis in exchange for certain non-compete and non-solicitation provisions for an 18-month period. The Cozzis received the first severance payment in January 2004. Shortly before the expiration of the 18-month period when a second payment was due, Metal Management filed a lawsuit alleging the Cozzis engaged in conduct that breached their fiduciary duties while employed as former officers of the company and breached the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions of the agreement. Winston attorneys obtained a dismissal based on an arbitration provision in the agreement, and then filed a proceeding in the American Arbitration Association seeking payment of the second severance payment, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Metal Management filed a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of $2 million for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the non-compete/non-solicitation provisions. The breach of fiduciary duty claim was dismissed by the AAA panel, and less than a week before trial, the parties agreed on a settlement regarding the payments due to the Cozzis. Metal Management dismissed its remaining claim for breach of the non-compete/non-solicitation provisions.
Capgemini U.S. LLC v. Arentowicz
Capgemini North America Inc.
Winston & Strawn attorneys represented Capgemini in an American Arbitration Association proceeding involving an age discrimination claim brought by a former highly compensated vice president seeking $8 million in damages (based on his expert report). The plaintiff alleged that his termination, after 20 years at the company and its predecessor in interest, could only have been because of his age. He alleged that Capgemini engaged in systemic discrimination of those in their 50s. The AAA panel found in Capgemini’s favor, dismissing the employee’s claim in its entirety.
Farmers Insurance Wage & Hour Litigation
Farmers Group Inc.
Winston & Strawn attorneys served as lead counsel in a 21-day bench trial in federal district court in Portland, Oregon for Farmers Insurance Company.
National Service Provider Wage and Hour Class Actions
Winston & Strawn is representing a Fortune 500 company that is a provider of services to residential and commercial customers through a network of company-owned and franchised locations in connection with multiple wage and hour class actions. The plaintiffs allege claims for missed meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and failure to reimburse for business expenses. In one case, after successfully moving to compel arbitration, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. In another case, the plaintiff essentially abandoned his claims after the court ordered the action to arbitration. A third case settled on terms very favorable to our clients. In the remaining cases, discovery is being conducted and no class certification motions have been filed.
Sumuel v. ADVO, Inc.
Advo Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented ADVO, Inc., a leading direct mail media company, in a certified class action brought by all exempt ADVO employees alleging that ADVO’s practices and policies resulted in a destruction of exempt status. Motions for summary judgment were heard and a ruling was granted in favor of our client after more than four years of litigation. The California Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment ruling in a published decision. Plaintiffs' petition to the California Supreme Court was denied.
Castle v. Wells Fargo Financial
Wells Fargo Bank
Winston & Strawn is currently defending Wells Fargo in a nationwide off-the-clock class action and a state meal and rest break action in the Northern District of California. The action involves allegations that credit managers and assistant managers in more than 1,000 Wells Fargo financial branches worked off the clock.
National Foreign Trade Council, et al. v. Giannoulias
National Foreign Trade Council Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented the National Foreign Trade Council, eight municipal fire and police pension funds, and eight individual beneficiaries of public pension funds in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 2005 Illinois Act to End Atrocities and Terrorism in the Sudan (the Illinois Sudan Act). The Act prohibited the deposit of Illinois state funds in any financial institution failing to certify that neither it nor any of its borrowers did business related to the country of Sudan. It also prohibited public pension funds from investing in any company that has direct or indirect commercial connections to that country. Winston attorneys argued that the Illinois Sudan Act intruded on the federal government’s exclusive power over foreign affairs, violated the clause of the Constitution that vests in Congress the power to legislate regarding foreign commerce, and is preempted by the federal government’s own trade sanctions against Sudan and by the National Bank Act. On February 23, 2007, a Northern District of Illinois judge ruled that the Illinois Sudan Act is unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The defendants have appealed the decision, but briefing on the appeal has been stayed pending passage of a new, narrower bill.
Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc. v. John B. Collins Associates, Inc., Stephen Underdal, Todd Mockler, Randy Floden, Robert Roehrig, and Hannah Kuhn
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
Our attorneys represent Guy Carpenter & Company in connection with a breach of contractual restrictive covenants and related tort and damages claims brought against John B. Collins Associates and five former employees who worked in Carpenter’s Minneapolis office. In July 2005, the five employees resigned from Carpenter and began working for Collins, a direct competitor of Carpenter, and solicited former Carpenter clients to move their business to Collins, which they did. The matter was settled before trial on favorable terms to our client.
Abbott Laboratories Non-Compete Litigation
Abbott Laboratories
Winston & Strawn attorneys defend Abbott Laboratories in a lawsuit brought by a pharmaceutical company alleging that Abbott misappropriated trade secrets and hired away from the plaintiff one of its top scientists in the field of diabetes-related research and development. The lawsuit was aggressively pursued by the plaintiff, who unsuccessfully sought an injunction prohibiting Abbott from hiring the scientist. On behalf of Abbott, Winston attorneys not only compiled significant evidence demonstrating that there had not been any trade secrets disclosed or misappropriated, but also took early, decisive steps in the litigation that ultimately brought the plaintiff to the bargaining table. After negotiations, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without any monetary payment by Abbott.
Abbott Laboratories v. Lori Taylor and Elan Pharmaceuticals
Abbott Laboratories
Our attorneys represented Abbott in a pending parallel Illinois and California action involving issues of "race to the courthouse" and competing state laws. Abbott sued the defendant, a former employee, in Illinois court to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement prohibiting her use or disclosure of Abbott’s trade secrets. The defendant’s new employer, Elan Pharmaceutical, subsequently filed a declaratory relief action in California state court, asking the court to declare Abbott's attempted enforcement of the defendant's restrictive covenants in violation of California law and public policy (Cal. Business & Professions Code section 16600). We successfully removed the California action to federal court. Both cases subsequently settled favorably.
Gary Alexander v. Caraustar Mill Group, Inc.
Caraustar Industries
Our attorneys secured summary judgment for Caraustar Mill Group in an action brought by a former employee in the Western District of New York. The plaintiff alleged claims of wrongful termination and discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York Human Rights Act. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, determining that the person who made the decision to terminate the employee had no prior knowledge of the disability.
Peggy Hawkins-Dean v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Our attorneys were successful on behalf of MetLife in having the United States Supreme Court vacate and remand a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an ERISA disability benefits case. Our attorneys represented MetLife, administrator of Robert Half International’s long-term health and disability plan, in case brought by a Robert Half employee. The Ninth Circuit held that MetLife should have included the amount the employee earned from stock options in her disability benefits.
RLJCS Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Professional Benefit Trust, Inc. et al.
Professional Benefit Trust, Inc.
Winston & Strawn secured a summary judgment decision, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for the Professional Benefit Trust Multiple Employer Welfare Benefit Plan and Trust (the “Trust”) in a unique case involving a welfare benefit plan that was designed and operated to allow employers to pre-fund certain benefits on a tax-deferred basis pursuant to IRC § 419A(f)(6). The plaintiffs, who contracted with our client for death benefits, alleged 16 counts including violations of civil RICO, ERISA, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, and other state law claims. As a means of reinsuring itself for payment of the death benefits, the Trust purchased life insurance from various mutual insurance companies, which subsequently demutualized. As a result of the demutualization, every policy owner was distributed an amount of stock equivalent to the ownership interest under the policy. In the Trust’s case the stock was worth approximately $5 million, an amount that the plaintiffs alleged belonged to them. The court agreed with our argument that the plaintiffs did not own the stock because they did not own the insurance policies and could not own the policies under the relevant plan documents and the requirements of IRC § 419A(f)(6). The court, on cross-motions, granted partial summary judgment for our client on the matter of ownership of the stock. The plaintiffs then dismissed with prejudice all other claims in the case in order to pursue an appeal of the ownership issue, which was unsuccessful.
Williams v. Giant Food Inc.
Giant of Maryland LLC
Our attorneys secured a victory for Giant Food Inc. and Royal Ahold NV as the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of our clients. The lawsuit was originally brought in 2002 in Maryland district court by a former assistant store manager.
Paulsen v. CNF, Inc. et al.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PB
Winston & Strawn attorneys represented the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. PBGC won summary judgment on the pleadings that a plaintiff could not bring such an action under Title I of ERISA against PBGC.
Unisource, Inc. v. Schroeder
Midland Paper Company
Winston & Strawn attorneys prevailed in a noncompete case before the District of Minnesota in which Unisource, Inc. sued our client, Rick Schroeder, who recently moved his business to Midland Paper Co., a Unisource competitor. Schroeder represented 10-20 percent of Unisource's revenue in Minnesota. After expedited briefing and oral argument, the court denied Unisource's motion for a temporary restraining order against our client, finding that Unisource had little chance of succeeding on the merits.
Crawford v. D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project
Winston & Strawn secured summary judgment for the D.C. Prisoners’ Legal Services Project in connection with a matter in which an employee alleged being subject to a sexually harassing environment and further claims of retaliation after filing a complaint about the harassment. The Superior Court’s decision was affirmed by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
District Counsel No. 16 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers, Local 1621 v. B&B Glass, Inc.
B&B Glass, Inc.
Our attorneys garnered success for B&B Glass, Inc. in a Section 301 action before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Northern District of California's ruling granting our motion to dismiss based on our interpretation of Section 8(e) of the NLRA. The Union sought to force our client into arbitration based on out-of-area and work preservation clauses in a collective bargaining agreement between our client and a different Union, and based on conduct by a separate, although related, company.
Nauman v. Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Laboratories
We currently represent Abbott in connection with a class action Section 510 claim arising out of Abbott’s spin-off of its Hospital Products Division. The putative class of approximately 10,000 employees allege that the spin-off was intended to interfere with their accrual of additional pension and retiree health benefits, as well as a breach of fiduciary duty.
Ambrose v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc. et al.
U.S. Foodservice
We represented U.S. Foodservice, Inc. ("USF") in a case before the Department of Labor brought by a former employee under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The employee claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting that a former executive had engaged in insider trading.
Ramey v. Potomac Electric Power Company/Potomac Electric Power Company v. Ramey
PEPCO
In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, our attorneys won a motion to dismiss all claims asserted by a former employee.
Anthony, et. al. v. American Airlines, et. al.
American Airlines
This purported class action involved former TWA flight attendants who claimed that their integration into the American Airlines system after the merger violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Roche v. Lincoln Property Co.
Lincoln Apartment Management Limited Par
On November 29, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision reversing the Fourth Circuit's decision in Roche v. Lincoln Property Co. The Roches originally filed this action in Virginia state court alleging wrongful discharge, breach of lease, conversion, negligence and other statutory and tort claims. Among other things, the Roches claimed that they were damaged by exposure to alleged "toxic mold" in an apartment managed by Lincoln Property Co. and owned by SWIB Investment Co. Lincoln and SWIB. Lincoln and SWIB removed the action to the federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Lincoln and SWIB in April 2003. This ruling was the first decision by a federal court on the issue of liability for claimed mold exposure. After the district court granted summary judgment, the Roches filed for the first time a motion to remand the case to state court, claiming that neither Lincoln nor SWIB were diverse parties. The district court denied the motion. Even though the Roches had not raised the issue on appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision granting summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds, finding that Lincoln had not satisfied its burden of establishing that an corporate affiliate that was not named as a party to the litigation was of diverse citizenship. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the citizenship of unnamed affiliates of a named defendant is irrelevant to the determination of diversity jurisdiction.
Melena v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
The firm was retained to represent Anheuser-Busch before the Illinois Supreme Court seeking to overturn an appellate court ruling that invalidated the company’s mandatory arbitration program for non-union employees.
Hamilton v. Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.
Our labor and employment attorneys defeated a petition to vacate an arbitration award which dismissed a former employee's constructive discharge and Family Medical Leave Act claims.
Nenita B. Gonzalez v. Tower Hill Health Care Center
SW Management Company
We represented Tower Hill in a breach of contract and fraud case filed by a former employee in Illinois state court.
Arma Franklin (and SEIU, Local 4) v. Carlton at the Lake, Inc.
Rajchenbach Jack L.
We represented an employer in a wrongful discharge arbitration under the relevant collective bargaining agreement. After a one-day evidentiary hearing, the arbitrator upheld the discharge decision based on "just cause" and denied the grievance.
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Sparrow, King and Midland Paper Co.
Midland Paper Company
Our attorneys represented the defendants in a breach of contract (covenant not to compete), trade secret, and breach of duty of loyalty case.
Food Workers Local 262, UFCW, RWSDU, AFL-CIO and DaVita Dialysis
DaVita Inc.
Our attorneys represented PDI Newark, a blood dialysis center that is part of the DaVita network of dialysis centers, before the NLRB in connection with unfair labor practices charges brought by Local 262 of New Jersey arising out of its attempt to become the exclusive collective bargaining representative of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and other PDI employees. The union alleged that PDI Newark violated federal labor laws by terminating two employees and threatening other employees. Our attorneys were successful in securing the dismissal of the termination-related charges, while the union withdrew the remaining charges.
USAirways Pension Litigation
AON Corporation
We represented the named fiduciary of the USAirways retirement plans against allegations that the plan’s investments in Company stock violated fiduciary duties under ERISA.
Morrison v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
The plaintiff's claim for allegedly owing benefits under the client's life insurance plan was denied as untimely. The plaintiff relied on alleged discrepancies in the plan document and SPD to argue a different limitations period should apply.
Rosalyn Moore v. Pharmacia
Pfizer Inc.
Winston & Strawn defended Pharmacia against claims of race discrimination under Title VII and § 1981, sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, and age discrimination under ADEA brought by a former employee.
Tsehaye v. William C. Smith & Co., Inc.
William C. Smith, Inc.
A former employee of W.C. Smith, an apartment management company, asserted a race discrimination and retaliation claim challenging the termination of his employment.
Cokenour v. Household International, Inc., et al.
Household Interntional - Board of Direct
The firm represented Household International in a national class action brought in the Northern District of Illinois against our client alleging violations of ERISA related to the investment of plan assets in Company stock.
Vasquez v. McCord Travel Management, Inc.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
We represented McCord Travel Management in a wrongful termination lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
IBEW Local 558 v. Wise Alloys, LLC
Wise Metals Group LLC
After a two-year conflict, our attorneys achieved success for Wise Alloys in a matter tried before the National Labor Relations Board involving back-pay issues. The IBEW and the NLRB demanded that Wise reimburse more than $500,000 in back pay to 16 unionized electricians who had been sent to Wise by the union for hiring, but only one of whom had the necessary credentials and was hired by Wise. The union insisted that Wise Alloys had to hire whomever the union sent to fill position openings, and the company refused to hire anyone who did not satisfy the position requirements it established. At trial, Wise Alloys was successful in convincing the court that all but one of the union referrals failed to meet the job qualifications for certain skilled positions at the Company's aluminum rolling mill. In the end, Wise was required to pay only $8,000 in back pay to one union employee.
Airline Pilots Association v. Pan American Airlines, et al.
Pan Am Systems Inc. (f/k/a Guilford Tran
Our attorneys defended Pan Am Airlines in a suit brought by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) under the Railway Labor Act for an injunction and damages related to Pan Am's decision to move all work from its unionized airline to a non-union affiliate, Boston-Maine Airways.
Yeung v. Commerce Casino
California Commerce Club, Inc.
Our attorneys represented Commerce Casino in connection with a wrongful termination case brought in Los Angeles Superior Court in which the employee was fired for gaming impropriety while playing cards on duty. It is against Commerce Casino’s policy to play cards while on duty, and the plaintiff was caught engaging in gaming impropriety on videotape surveillance. The situation was particularly egregious because the employee’s job duties included monitoring games to ensure that no impropriety took place, and he actually conspired with the dealer to “fix” the game so that he would win.
Bong v. California Commerce Club, Inc., Sparks v. Commerce Casino and Rowe v. California Commerce Casino, Inc.
California Commerce Club, Inc.
We represented Commerce Casino in a broad range of wage and hour issues common to the hospitality and casino industry, from issues involving meal and rest periods, tips and tip pooling, uniforms and reimbursements, overtime, and off-the-clock work.
Intervention, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California, Inc.
Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.
We represented Wellpoint in two unfair competition cases involving the alleged misclassification of multiple categories of employees, and challenging the administrative and professional exempt status of those employees.
Patterson v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Our labor attorneys represented Anheuser-Busch in an employment arbitration in which a former employee challenged her termination as "unlawful" and "retaliatory".
PLATO Learning, Inc. v. Former Employees and New Employer
Plato Learning, Inc.
On behalf of PLATO Learning, our attorneys brought an employee raiding and non-solicit lawsuit in Alabama state court against three of our client's former employees and their new employer alleging breach of contract and unfair competition. We obtained a 30-day TRO against the defendants, effectively shutting down their operations in Alabama and Mississippi, and ultimately achieved a favorable settlement for our client.
MacLean Fiberglass v. Former Employees and New Employer
MacLean-Fogg Company
Our attorneys obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in South Carolina state court for MacLean Fiber Glass, a subsidiary of client MacLean Fogg, against a former MacLean employee and his new start-up company.
Bard v. Iso-ray and Ellis
C.R. Bard, Inc. - Chicago
The firm brought a successful non-compete case on behalf of C.R. Bard in the District of New Jersey.
Vellma Marcus v. Pharmacia Corporation
Pfizer Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Pharmacia in a negligent retention and supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress case in Georgia state court.
Behrens v. Silliker Laboratories, Inc.
Silliker Laboratories, Inc.
We represented Silliker in a Title VII action brought in the Northern District of Illinois involving sexual harassment and sexual discrimination claims.
Oblix, Inc. v. Winiecki
Oblix, Inc.
Our attorneys assisted Oblix, Inc. compel arbitration of a former employee's gender discrimination and retaliation claims in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Carter v. Harmony Nursing and Healthcare
Itex
We represented a nursing home employer at administrative hearing with oral argument and witness testimony before the Department of Employment Security involving claims for unemployment compensation.
Slames v. Verizon Wireless
Verizon Wireless
Our labor and employment attorneys defended Verizon Wireless against a former employee's claims of unfair competition related to contract practices, retaliation, and discrimination. Our client filed a cross-complaint against the former employee for the removal of confidential documents from the company.
Lane v. Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO)
BP America, Inc.
Our attorneys won a motion for summary judgment on behalf of BP in a case brought by a former employee who claimed that her termination from ARCO's Los Angeles oil refinery after her refusal to submit to a random drug test violated her privacy rights and breached an implied employment contract because she was not a "safety sensitive" employee who could be subjected to random testing.
Blackwell v. American Airlines
American Airlines
We achieved a jury trial verdict for American Airlines in connection with two claims of retaliatory discharge based on the Americans With Disabilities Act and state law retaliation.
Tice v. American Airlines
American Airlines
After a seven-year battle waged through the federal trial and appellate courts, our attorneys secured dismissal of an ADEA class action filed by former pilots against client American Airlines, Inc. for alleged discrimination in disallowing their job bids to flight engineer positions.
Barbara Gomber v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Our attorneys secured summary judgment for PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and one of its former employees in a gender discrimination action based on claims of demotion and termination, which were brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Hammond v. Wise Alloys
Wise Metals Group LLC
The firm won a motion to dismiss an ERISA class action suit brought against client Wise Alloys.
Alicia Tapia v. Prairie Packaging, Inc.
Prairie Packaging, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Prairie Packaging in a retaliatory discharge case in which the plaintiff alleged she was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Marsh USA, Inc. v. The Hays Group, et al.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
We represented Marsh & McLennan in the District of Columbia Superior Court in a declaratory judgment action brought by a former senior manager seeking to void her noncompetition agreement.
Gardner v. American Airlines, Inc.
American Airlines
Plaintiff, a former TWA employee pre-merger, sued American and various individuals alleging sex discrimination, retaliation and various state law claims.
Black & Decker v. Nord
Black & Decker
The firm secured a 9-0 victory from the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Black & Decker in an ERISA matter.
Pharmacia Corporation v. W. Lloyd Sanders and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Our labor and employment attorneys represented Pharmacia Corporation in a lawsuit in state court in Dallas County, Texas, against a former manager who was planning to join a competitor.
Guy Carpenter, Inc. v. Anthony Provenzale
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
In a significant matter before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, our attorneys sought to enforce a covenant not to solicit on behalf of client Guy Carpenter & Company.
Clingerman v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp.
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
Winston & Strawn represented Smurfit-Stone Container in a commercial arbitration in July 2002 involving claims for high-level executive severance and bonus pay following a merger "change in control."
Sharlene Jordan (and Fraternal Order of Police) v. Illinois State Police
Illinois Dept. Of State Police
We represented the Illinois State Police in contract interpretation arbitration in June 2002 involving scheduling of vacation pay under relevant collective bargaining agreement the arbitrator upheld denial of the grievance.
Patricia Peele v. Country Mutual Insurance Company, No. 99 C 638
CC Services, Inc.
Our attorneys achieved success for Country Mutual Insurance Company in a significant case before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which the plaintiff, a former employee, claimed sex and age discrimination following her termination. Our attorneys were successful in convincing the district court that the plaintiff could not prove alleged discrimination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court and also granted summary judgment for Country Mutual, stating that our client not only demonstrated that the plaintiff’s poor performance was not pre-textual, but also should have been granted summary judgment because the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of either sex or age discrimination in light of her documented poor performance.
Wooten v. Fortune Brands, Inc. and ACCO Office Products
Fortune Brands, Inc.
Our labor and employment attorneys won a directed verdict on behalf of Fortune Brands in a federal court jury trial involving claims of harassment and sex discrimination.
Anheuser-Busch v. Teamsters Local 744
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
We represented Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc. in a labor arbitration involving the Teamsters.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lyons, et al.
Caterpillar Inc. Corp. Office
We represented Caterpillar in connection with a complaint it filed in the Central District of Illinois seeking a declaration that the Illinois Employment of Strikebreakers Act (ESA) and its recent amendments violated our client’s rights under the NLRA and was preempted by federal labor law.
Perrin J. Pinta v. Pharmacia Corporation
Pfizer Inc.
Our attorneys represented a Pharmacia in an administrative hearing before the Department of Labor involving claims for severance pay, pro rata bonus amounts and vacation pay.
Friz v. Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
We represented Marsh & McLennan in an ERISA class action suit in which the plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages in connection with the administration of a severance pay plan.
C.R. Bard v. Daniel Keating and The Kendall Company
C.R. Bard, Inc. - Chicago
We brought an action in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of C.R. Bard to enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions contained in a former executive’s employment agreement. An injunction was entered against the former employee and the competitor, preventing the former employee from working in certain key product areas and from disclosing confidential information.
Blackwell v. Deluxe Corp.
Deluxe Corporation
We represented Deluxe in an ERISA class action in which the plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages in connection with the company’s failure to pay severance benefits after the sale of a business unit.
Mein v. Carus Chemical Co.
Carus Corporation
A jury returned a verdict for our client Carus after a one-week trial in the Northern District of Illinois involving claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation.
Mulder v. Mercer Management, Marsh McLennan Companies, Inc.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
A jury returned a verdict for our client Mercer, a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan, after a two-week trial in Washington, D.C. involving claims of sex discrimination and retaliation. Multiple additional claims were dismissed on summary judgment prior to trial.
Jackson and Serment v. Brach’s Confections
Brach's Confections, Inc.
We defended Brach in a case filed in the Northern District of Illinois in which the plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to substantive benefits due to Brach’ s alleged procedural violations of ERISA.
Gilbert, et al. v. Ameritech Corporation, et al.
AT&T
A group of 39 former employees terminated during a reduction-in-force filed an ADEA and ERISA suit against Ameritech and related entities, including class action allegations for violations of ERISA Section 510.
In Re Caterpillar Inc.
Caterpillar Inc. Corp. Office
Winston & Strawn represented Caterpillar in all litigation that arose in connection with the eight-year labor dispute between Caterpillar and the United Auto Workers.
Appellate Cases - Labor and Employment/ERISA
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those in the labor and employment and ERISA areas.
Local 179, IBT v. TSC Enterprises, Inc.
National Bank Of Canada
In a case of first impression regarding what constituted an unlawful "rolling notice," we defended TSC in a class action WARN claim that was filed in connection with TSC’s closure of a steel mill it purchased out of bankruptcy. The court granted summary judgment, finding that all notices issued by TSC complied with federal law.
Armstrong, et al. v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
This action was filed in Massachusetts District Court by two retirees who claimed that Jefferson Smurfit breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to advise them of the tax consequences of accepting lump-sum payments in exchange for discontinuing their health insurance benefits.
Gardner v. Container Corporation of America, et al.
Container Corporation of America
We defended Container Corporation of America (CCA) against a plaintiff’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA after our client’s benefit plan administrator declined to provide the plaintiff with health insurance coverage.
UPIU v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
We represented Jefferson Smurfit Corp. (JSC) in a class action filed by various unions and more than 3,500 retirees under ERISA and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act challenging changes to JSC’s retiree medical benefits plan and the portion of the cost charged to retirees.
Goggans v. Container Corporation of America
Container Corporation of America
We represented Container Corporation of America (CCA) in a class action filed by former employees of three plants that had been sold.
Alday v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
Winston & Strawn represented JSC in a nationwide class action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of salaried retirees who claimed that the company's changes to and increases in the cost charged for retiree medical benefits violated, inter alia, ERISA.
Monroe-Higman v. United Air Lines, Inc.
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
The threshold issue in this case was whether United’s mandatory age-60 policy for all flight-deck crew members was legal under ADEA.
UIFO v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. - I
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
A group of dissident pilots filed this $140 million ADEA and ERISA suit against United and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) alleging that United’s pilot-defined benefit pension plan was age discriminatory, violated ERISA benefit accrual and fiduciary standards, and failed to refund employee contributions and to give full credit under the plan for all years of service of its older pilots.
UIFO v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. - II
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
This unrelated suit filed by the same dissident group against United and ALPA alleged a multimillion-dollar breach of the duty of fair representation and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA in connection with United’s pilot-defined contribution pension plan.
Addison v. United Air Lines, Inc.
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
In this case, dissident pilots and others sued to prevent United from conducting a spinoff/termination of the pilots’ defined benefit pension plan to recover over $500 million in excess assets.
Puckett/Kuecker v. United Air Lines, Inc.
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
This suit was brought by a group of pilots against United and ALPA principally alleging violations of ADEA because the pension program did not provide any pension credit or contributions for service after the normal retirement date.
|
RSS | Blog | Advertising Opportunities | Site Map | Contact Us