Home | Practice Areas | Employment Litigation Defense

Our team of attorneys has a wealth of experience handling virtually every type of employment litigation claim - from inception through trial and appeal. We have represented our clients locally, regionally and nationally, depending on the clients’ requirements. By fashioning a strategy that fits our client’s unique circumstances, we take a “client-centered” approach to resolving issues. To do so, we must understand all facets of the problem; we must understand the client’s business goals; and we must design a solution that best resolves the problem with a vision toward how the solution will impact future problem resolution.

Instead of providing our clients with two options – summary judgment or settlement, we provide a third option – trial. Sometimes, trial is the best path to resolve disputes for a variety of reasons, and we believe we cannot effectively serve our clients’ needs unless we can protect the clients’ interests at trial. Our lawyers have the vision to see how our clients’ actions today will be viewed by a jury at trial; the skill to marshal the evidence at trial in favor of the client; and the experience to take the case all the way to verdict.

Our clients come from a wide range of industries that include:

• Health care
• Banking
• Financial services
• Manufacturing
• Wholesale and retail entities
• Transportation
• Automotive
• Entertainment
• Construction

We can also represent your company even if your employment risks are insured. Presently, our firm’s name appears on “approved panel lists” for a number of insurance companies. If your company has Employment Practices Liability Insurance, you do not have to accept a lawyer from an “insurance defense firm.” We can work with your insurance company to bring the full capability of our 30-plus-member Labor and Employment Practice Group, along with our 500-plus-lawyer firm and all its resources to serve your needs.

On February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit’s definition of "Supervisor" under Title VII as stated in Vance v. Ball State University.

Recently, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed Senate Bill 188, legislation that would have made it more difficult for employees suing their employers to win in court and would have limited the remedies available to such employees.

On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a sex-discrimination class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, which could have included more than one million female workers, could not move forward. The Supreme Court's recent decisions may create more scrutiny of plaintiffs using other class devices – such as collective and class actions in Fair Labor Standards Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act cases – against their current or former employers.

February 23, 2012	Supreme Court of the United States to Review “Supervisor” Liability in Title VII Hostile Work Environment Claims On February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit’s definition of "Supervisor" under Title VII as stated in Vance v. Ball State University.
June 24, 2011	Missouri Veto Means Employers Remain Exposed Recently, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed Senate Bill 188, legislation that would have made it more difficult for employees suing their employers to win in court and would have limited the remedies available to such employees.
June 20, 2011	Pro-Business Decision: Supreme Court Rules on Class Action Discrimination Suit against Wal-Mart On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a sex-discrimination class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, which could have included more than one million female workers, could not move forward. The Supreme Court's recent decisions may create more scrutiny of plaintiffs using other class devices – such as collective and class actions in Fair Labor Standards Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act cases – against their current or former employers.
January 28, 2011	Supreme Court Unanimously Approves Third-Party Retaliation Claims Under Title VII In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court today issued an important opinion for employees and employers alike in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, creating a cause of action for third-party retaliation for persons who did not themselves engage in activity protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The court’s decision exposes employers to a new risk: retaliation claims by employees who did not themselves make a complaint or file a charge of discrimination. Employers must keep the court’s ruling in mind and add it to the list of considerations they analyze before making employment decisions.

Practice Contact

Related Practice Areas

Employment Litigation Defense

Newsletters & E-Alerts