Jury Verdicts for Employers

An employer in the transportation industry fired an employee after he was insubordinate and threatened his supervisor. The employee sued, claiming that he had been subjected to racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation for several years before his termination. The Firm's attorneys represented the defendant in the trial in federal court, and secured a complete defense verdict after a five-week jury trial.

In another case, an employer was sued for discrimination and retaliation by an employee who had been denied several promotions. The employee's claims were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the employer on all claims.

In yet another trial victory, the Firm's attorneys represented an employer that was accused of failing to reasonably accommodate an employee's disability. In that case, an employee who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis wanted to work a more flexible work schedule, but her employer insisted that it was an essential part of her job that she work five days a week, Monday through Friday. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for the employer.

Summary Judgments for Employers

In several cases, Cook Roos Wilbur LLP has obtained summary judgments for employers who were sued after they fired male employees who violated the company's anti-harassment policies. In one of these cases, a female employee complained about the comments and actions of her male coworker; the male employee then told his employer that he "denied everything;" and the employer terminated the male employee after finding that his blanket denial was not credible. In another case, a male employee was warned about his behavior; he then threatened to retaliate against the female employee who had complained about him; and he was then fired. In yet another case, a male employee was told to refrain from certain behavior that his female coworker objected to, he was then fired after he ignored his employer's instructions, and he complained that his employer's action amounted to "sex discrimination." In all of these cases, the Firm obtained summary judgments for the employers.

The Firm has also obtained summary judgments for employers on claims of race discrimination, religious discrimination, age discrimination, national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, sexual harassment, religious harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, and ERISA claims.

Dismissals

The Firm's litigation successes also include both involuntary and voluntary dismissals. In one case, the plaintiff was claiming that her employer discriminated against her because of her pregnancy and failed to reasonably accommodate her pregnancy. In the initial stages of the litigation, the employer was represented by other counsel. When the Firm was retained by the defendant, we promptly filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff dismissed her case.

In another case, the Firm's client had a solid defense, and made the plaintiff and his attorney aware of that defense at an early stage of the litigation. The Firm then filed a motion for summary judgment and served the plaintiff and his attorney with a motion seeking monetary sanctions for continuing to pursue a meritless action. In response to those motions, the plaintiff dismissed his case.

Favorable Outcomes in Class Actions

One of the Firm's attorneys represented a national retailer that was sued in a wage and hour class action. The plaintiff, who purported to represent a class of hundreds of store employees in the state of California, claimed among other things that the class members had been improperly classified as exempt and were denied overtime compensation and meal and rest breaks to which they were entitled. The putative class claims amounted to millions of dollars in unpaid overtime compensation, as well as other penalties, interest and attorney's fees. Although many employers have chosen to settle these claims rather than take the risk of losing a motion for class certification, the company wanted to aggressively defend its position that class certification was not appropriate. A Superior Court judge in Orange County denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

In another wage and hour class action, an attorney in the Firm obtained summary adjudication on the key issue in the case. The plaintiffs there represented a class of California store managers who were paid under a commission plan which our client contended exempted them from California overtime requirements. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the commission plan, claiming that it was a sham, and sought millions of dollars in overtime compensation on behalf of the putative class. The court ruled in the company's favor, finding that the company's plan satisfied the requirements for the commission exemption under California law.

The Firm has also achieved extremely favorable settlements for clients against whom wage and hour class actions have been asserted for alleged employee misclassification, meal and rest break and record-keeping violations, failure to pay for uniforms, and "off the clock" claims, among others. In each of these instances, favorable settlements were effected after our lawyers developed a compelling factual and legal record that undermined the plaintiffs' ability to obtain class certification.

Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Agreements

Cook Roos Wilbur LLP also represents employers and individuals in claims involving the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, non-competition agreements, and related issues. In one matter, a competitor of the Firm's client hired approximately two dozen of the client's sales employees who had access to our client's confidential information and trade secrets. Those employees then used information they had obtained while working for our client to solicit business on behalf of their new employer, in violation of agreements they had signed with our client. The Firm aggressively pursued claims against the client's competitor and the employees it had hired, and obtained a mid-six-figure settlement for our client.

Union Organizing Campaigns Defeated

A provider of temporary health care workers was the target of a high profile and well-financed campaign by a national union to organize a unit of hundreds of employees in the South Bay. The client, with the guidance of one of the Firm's attorneys, was able to mount a successful counter-campaign, with the result that the union was resoundingly defeated by a large margin. Although the union tried to claim that the company had engaged in unfair tactics in winning the election, the National Labor Relations Board determined that all of the union's charges were without merit and dismissed them.

Another employer, a government contractor based in California with facilities and employees in Hawaii, was able to successfully defeat two campaigns to organize the Hawaii employees, even though the employees on the mainland were already represented by the same union. The company looked to a member of our team on both occasions to help it educate the employees about the risks of union representation.

On other occasions, the Firm's attorneys have persuaded unions to voluntarily withdraw petitions during hearings. In one case, after a full day of hearings before the National Labor Relations Board, the union voluntarily withdrew its petition after becoming convinced that the unit of employees it sought to organize was not a proper unit for bargaining. In another case, a union voluntarily withdrew its petition after several days of testimony before the National Labor Relations Board and after our client prevailed on a key motion that was made during the hearing.