• vcard
312.463.6375
  • Education
    • J.D., cum laude, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, 2004, Labor & Employment Law Moot Court Team; CALI Award recipient, Appellate Advocacy
    • B.A., cum laude, Wittenberg University, 2001, Political Science
  • Court Admissions
    • U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, 2011
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2005
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2008
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2014

Scott Gilbert counsels clients during critical moments of the employment relationship. From onboarding a new employee to managing concerns arising from the termination of an employment relationship, Scott helps clients identify and evaluate risk factors in order to minimize liability and achieve their business goals. Scott regularly advises clients on matters related to restrictive covenants from both the enforcement and defensive perspectives. He also provides his client with day-to-day counsel regarding compliance with the myriad of federal, state and local laws that govern the employment relationship. Additionally, he advises clients in all facets of employment litigation, including arbitrations, claims before administrative agencies, and matters pending in federal and state courts.

  • Successfully enforced restrictive covenant under Florida law against former regional sales director for a pharmaceutical company who had accepted a comparable position with a competitor servicing the same territory.
  • Successfully enforced restrictive under Illinois against two former employees who left to begin a competing logistics company.
  • Successfully enforced restrictive covenant under Louisiana against former sales representative for a medical device company who had accepted a comparable position with a direct competitor servicing the same territory.  
  • Successfully enforced restrictive covenant under New York law against former sales representative for a medical device company who had accepted a comparable position with a direct competitor servicing the same territory.
  • Successfully enforced restrictive covenant under Missouri law against former account executive who had accepted a comparable position with a competitor servicing the same territory.
  • Successfully defended technology company under Minnesota law against a tortious interference claim from a former employer by establishing that the two entities were not true competitors and that the employee at issue was not provided with sufficient access to confidential information to create a protectable interest under the employee’s restrictive covenant agreement.
  • Successfully defended Charge of sex discrimination and retaliation from former sales representative of medical device Company by establishing that basis for termination was plaintiff’s failure to meet objective sales quotas and related discipline.
  • Successfully defended real estate property owner against claims of race and age discrimination and retaliation from former employee who was terminated for performance issues.
  • Successfully defended fire protection district in relation to claim from former fire chief alleging that termination violated 42 USC §1983, resulting in court granting motion to dismiss.
  • Successfully defended construction company against proposed class action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by establishing that there was insufficient statistical evidence of a disparate impact, and that physical abilities test administered to the plaintiff was job related and consist with business necessity.  
  • Successfully defended laboratory against claims of race and age discrimination raised by a former technician by establishing that plaintiff’s objective performance deficiencies were the basis for termination.
  • Successfully obtained dismissal of former employees claims under Americans with Disabilities Act by establishing that the plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claims were outside the scope of the plaintiff’s EEOC charge, and that plaintiff’s retaliation claims failed due to an inability to establish that any of the allegedly retaliatory events were sufficiently severe to qualify as an adverse employment actions.
  • Successfully defended manufacturer in labor arbitration in which the union alleged that the employer had improperly applied its bonus structure in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
text icon Publications & Presentations
Co-Author, Polsinelli at Work Blog
July 9, 2021
text icon Publications & Presentations
Author, Polsinelli At Work Blog
March 25, 2021
webinar Webinars
September 17, 2020
text icon Publications & Presentations
Co-Author, Polsinelli At Work Blog
August 5, 2020
text icon Publications & Presentations
Author, COVID-19 Blog
April 29, 2020
text icon Publications & Presentations
Co-Author, COVID-19 Blog
April 22, 2020
text icon Publications & Presentations
Co-Author, COVID-19 Blog
April 2, 2020
text icon Publications & Presentations
Co-Author, COVID-19 Blog
April 2, 2020
text icon Publications & Presentations
Co-Author, COVID-19 Blog
March 29, 2020
webinar Webinars
March 25, 2020
Related News


Past Events