We understand that you have many lawyers to choose from, therefore we will share some of the outcomes we have obtained for our clients to put you in a position to make an informed decision about which one to hire. As you will see, we have gotten many favorable results. But we will note that every case is different, and although we will work your case hard and to the best of our ability, we cannot guarantee specific results. Please also keep in mind that one of the reasons we consistently obtain favorable outcomes is that we are incredibly selective about the cases we take on; put another way, we only take meritorious cases we think we can (and should) win if your case goes to trial. Please click here to see what our clients think about us.
JRW Law wins Supreme Court victory for on-call workers.
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently determined in one of our cases that some employers must pay their employees for “on-call” time. The Court’s decision represents a huge victory for workers, and opens the door to them potentially recovering millions of dollars in back pay.
If you or someone you know weren’t paid for on-call time, our firm may be able to recover thousands of dollars of unpaid wages dating back up to three years. We work these kinds of cases under contingent fee arrangements, which means our clients owe us nothing unless we are able to recover money for them.
Call us at 612.486.5540 or use our contact form to start the process of becoming our client.
JRW Law investigating property management companies’ overtime pay practices.
It has come to our attention that some property management companies, including FirstService Residential, may be miscalculating the overtime rate owed to employee resident caretakers. As a result, these caretakers may be entitled to thousands, if not millions, of dollars in back pay.
If you worked as a resident caretaker for a property management company, our firm may be able to recover unpaid overtime wages for you dating back up to three years. We will work your case on a contingent fee basis, which means you owe us nothing unless we are able to recover money for you.
Call us at 612.486.5540 or use our contact form to start the process of becoming our client.
JRW Law holds Automotive Concepts accountable for denying our client maternity leave.
Our client worked for almost three years as a title clerk for Automotive Concepts, which is a New Hope company in the business of selling and customizing cars. She loved her job, and hoped to stay there for years to come. When she became pregnant with her daughter, she let her supervisor know that she intended to take maternity leave, and repeatedly tried to work with her supervisor to put a plan for maternity leave in place. Her supervisor ignored her requests, and when our client went into labor, there was still no plan in place.
The FMLA and the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act entitle employees such as our client to 12 weeks of job-protected parenting leave. Yet instead of supporting our client and complying with the law by allowing her the opportunity to care for and bond with her new daughter, her superiors at Automotive Concepts began pressuring her to return to work less than three weeks after she gave birth. Automotive Concepts implied to our client that it would terminate her if she did not return to work before she exhausted her entitlement to 12 weeks of parenting leave, which forced her to cut her leave short by six weeks. Automotive Concepts then terminated her employment shortly after she returned to work, apparently in retaliation for taking maternity leave.
We brought a lawsuit on our client’s behalf against Automotive Concepts under the FMLA and the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act, which make it illegal for employers to deny employees 12 weeks of parenting leave, and to retaliate against employees for taking parenting leave.
Even though Automotive Concepts did not have an FMLA leave policy in place, which is a violation of the FMLA in and of itself, it nonetheless forced our client to go to court to enforce her rights. Automotive Concepts eventually did the right thing and agreed to settle for an amount roughly equivalent to our client’s lost wages.
JRW Law investigating courier and delivery service industry’s illegal “shaving” business practices.
It has come to our attention that it is a common practice among some companies who operate courier and delivery services to “shave” payments they owe to workers. That is, the companies enter into contractor agreements that obligate them to pay their couriers and delivery drivers a certain percentage of the gross amounts they charge their customers per delivery, yet the companies pay a percentage based on amounts less than what they actually charge customers. These “shaving” business practices result in companies stealing millions of dollars from couriers and delivery drivers, and are illegal in Minnesota.
If you worked as a courier or a delivery driver, our firm can help you recover any amounts taken from you under an illegal shaving scheme, and help you hold a wrongdoer accountable for violating your rights under the law. We will work your case on a contingent fee basis, which means you owe us nothing unless we are able to recover money for you.
Call us at 612.486.5540 or use our contact form to start the process of becoming our client.
JRW Law and our clients win judgment against Bitesquad for its illegal tip-sharing scheme.
Our clients worked as drivers for KASA Delivery, LLC, (“Bitesquad”), which is an online food delivery service. Bitesquad’s customers pay for their food by entering their credit card information on a “check out” page at Bitesquad’s website, and they are given the option to select a tip amount based on a percentage of the total cost of the order, or by entering a specific dollar amount.
When a customer selects or enters a tip amount, Bitesquad’s website automatically takes a percentage of the tip amount from drivers, and allocates it to “Staff.” Bitesquad’s website violates the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, which makes it illegal for employers to take tips, force employees to share tips, or otherwise participate in tip-sharing arrangements.
We brought a class action lawsuit against Bitesquad on behalf of our clients and all other drivers, and Bitesquad transferred the case to arbitration under an arbitration agreement it forces its drivers to sign at the beginning of their employment.
On June 26, 2017, the Arbitrator filed an Order agreeing with us that Bitesquad’s website violated the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act as a matter of law, and granted our request for judgment that Bitesquad is liable to our clients for taking their tips.
If you worked as a driver for Bitesquad, our firm can help you recover the tips Bitesquad took from you and hold Bitesquad accountable for violating your rights under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. We will work your case on a contingent fee basis, which means you owe us nothing unless we are able to recover money for you.
Call us at 612.486.5540 or use our contact form to start the process of becoming our client.
JRW Law recovers $90,000 settlement in police misconduct case.
As detailed in a probable cause memorandum issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, our client and her husband were driving about a mile from her home in Woodbury when a Minnesota State Trooper conducted an unlawful stop of their vehicle, then proceeded to run roughshod over her civil rights. Specifically, he unlawfully searched her car without a warrant, used unnecessary force against her, and unlawfully detained her. To add insult to injury, the State Trooper issued our client a citation for “obstruction of legal process w/out force” and “failure to obey lawful order,” which forced her to endure the indignity of a full-blown criminal trial to clear her name. Following the State Trooper’s trial testimony, the Washington County District Court granted our client’s motion for judgment of acquittal and dismissed the case against her.
Our client retained our firm, and other side did the right thing and agreed to settle her claims for $90,000.
JRW Law recovers $120,000 settlement in police misconduct case.
As reported by Fox 9 News, our client was a passenger in a car pulled over by Richfield police officers. The officers ordered the driver to exit the car to complete field sobriety tests, and ordered the passengers to remain in the car. As the one of the officers put it, if a passenger exited the car, he would “beat the s**t out of” them. Shortly thereafter, another officer ordered the passengers to exit the vehicle, which flatly contradicted the first officer’s order. The officers then pulled our client out of the car, and fulfilled their promise of “beating the s**t” out of him with their fists and kicks. They also delivered three drive stuns into our client’s body with their Taser weapons.
Our firm sued the police officers on our client’s behalf for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The other side did the right thing and agreed to settle his claims for $120,000.
JRW Law client instrumental in YMCA’s adoption of diabetes policy.
Our client had a five-year-old child with diabetes. She asked the YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities to modify a summer program so her child could participate, but the YMCA did not provide the modifications she requested. Tim Phillips represented her in a lawsuit, and she was instrumental in the YMCA’s adoption of a diabetes policy.
University of Minnesota panel finds JRW Law clients not responsible for violating two subdivisions of the student conduct code.
Our two clients occupied the President of the University of Minnesota’s office for more than seven hours on February 9, 2015. Tim Phillips represented them at a six-hour trial before a panel of the Campus Committee on Student Behavior. The panel found our clients not responsible for violating the two subdivisions of the student conduct code at issue: Disorderly Conduct and Refusal to Identify and Comply.
Hennepin County jury acquits JRW Law client in trespassing case related to Black Lives Matter protest.
Our client attended the Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America in December 2014. Bloomington police arrested her in the parking ramp for trespassing at the Mall. Tim Phillips represented our client at a four-day trial, and a Hennepin County jury returned a not guilty verdict after five hours of deliberation.
JRW Law wins class action jury trial.
Our clients, both hardworking family men, worked for Industrial Staffing, where their job was to clean Target Field. Industrial Staffing promised in writing to pay our clients and their coworkers a little more than the federal minimum wage, but not by much: $8.50 or $9.25 an hour, depending on the work assignment. Yet Industrial Staffing broke its promise to pay our clients and their coworkers these hourly wages.
Specifically, it didn’t pay them any wages for the 30 minutes it required them to wait around at its office before their shifts started; under the law, “working time” in this case included waiting time.
In July 2013 we brought a putative class action lawsuit against Industrial Staffing on behalf of our clients and the thousands of other employees who had their wages shorted by Industrial Staffing. Like most wrongdoers who get sued, Industrial Staffing pushed back instead of trying to do the right thing. First, it brought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which the Court denied (after we beat back the motion, Industrial Staffing discharged its lawyers, Faegre Baker Daniels).
After a contentious discovery period, it asked the Court a second time to dismiss our clients’ claims. On November 19, 2014, the Hennepin County District Court filed an Order denying Industrial Staffing’s motion for summary judgment, certifying our proposed class, and appointing JRW Law as class counsel.
Industrial Staffing then appealed the District Court’s Order, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals denied the appeal.
The case finally proceeded to trial, where the jury vindicated the rights of our clients and their coworkers by returning a verdict allowing them to recover the roughly $200,000 Industrial Staffing stole from them.
The jury’s verdict represents a resounding win for the less-powerful and disenfranchised. Our firm is proud of the jury for doing the right thing and honored our clients gave us the privilege of representing them.
JRW Law beats back motion to dismiss in Minnesota Health Records Act lawsuit.
Our client had been locked in a contentious child custody battle with her ex-husband for years. Our client’s son complained that her ex subjected him to abuse, which caused our client to suffer a panic attack. Our client sought treatment from Fairview Health Services for her panic attack.
A day after our client sought treatment for her panic attack, her son received treatment from Fairview. In Fairview’s written summary of her son’s visit, it referenced the care our client received. Shortly thereafter, our client’s ex-husband requested the summary, yet Fairview failed to redact the reference to the care our client received before giving it to him. Our client’s ex then filed the summary against her in court in their custody proceeding.
We sued Fairview on our client’s behalf under the Minnesota Health Records Act, which bars health care providers from releasing patients’ health records without the patient’s consent.
Instead of doing the right thing, Fairview and its legal team brought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and belittled our client, her claims, and her harm suffered.
The Court filed an Order denying Fairview’s motion in its entirety. The case will now proceed to trial, where our firm looks forward to vindicating our client’s rights.
JRW Law beats back motion to dismiss in sexual harassment retaliation lawsuit.
Our client, an environmental scientist, was thrilled to land a job in her field in the middle of the Great Recession. Her elation soon turned to regret when her supervisor began subjecting her to sex discrimination and sexual harassment. She complained about it, and her employer fired her in retaliation.
She brought a charge of discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, and after investigating her charge for 28 months, the Department validated her allegations by finding probable cause that her employer retaliated against her in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Our firm then sued the employer on our client’s behalf.
Instead of doing the right thing, the employer moved to dismiss the lawsuit and tried to turn the tables on her by arguing that she should be held responsible for the Department’s delay and “must accept the consequences of her choices.”
In other words, the employer’s motion to dismiss amounted to little more than a form of victim-blaming from a bygone era.
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota recognized that our client was not responsible for the Department’s delay and filed an Order denying the employer’s motion.
Our client and our firm look forward to vindicating her rights at trial.
JRW Law obtains full monetary vindication for our client in disability discrimination/retaliation case.
Our client worked as a pediatric nurse at one of the most prestigious hospitals in Minnesota, where she took tremendous pride in caring for sick children and making a positive difference in their lives. During one of her shifts, another nurse falsely accused her of threatening to harm herself. Her employer required her to go to the ER, where she was evaluated by a doctor. The ER doctor released her that day, concluding that she was not a threat to herself or others.
Despite the ER doctor’s conclusions, our client’s employer required her to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation with a third party before allowing her to return to work. Our client complied with the order to submit to the evaluation, where the third party requested her to sign authorizations permitting it to access all of her medical records, including OB/GYN records and other medical records unrelated to her perceived suicidal ideations. The third party also requested her to take an HIV test.
Our client provided the third party with authorizations permitting it to access some of her medical records, but declined the request to provide OB/GYN records and to take an HIV test because she believed the requests (1) were not relevant to her disability or perceived disabilities, (2) were intrusive, and (3) violated the law. In response, her employer refused to allow her to return to work, and shortly thereafter it posted and filled her position.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), employers may not require employees to submit to medical examinations and may not make inquiries into employees’ medical history unless it is both necessary and job-related.
Our firm sued our client’s former employer for violating the ADA by requesting her to release all of her medical records and submit to an HIV test, and retaliating against her for refusing the illegal requests. The other side initially belittled our client and her claims, but after we responded to their lowball offer at a mediation by packing up our things and leaving, they did the right thing and settled for an amount our client views as a full monetary vindication.
JRW Law recovers an amount equal to three times our client’s lost wages in FMLA/disability discrimination case.
Our client worked for her company for over 20 years. She grew up with the company and loved her job. In recent years, she developed several musculoskeletal disorders, including fibromyalgia, and she adjusted to living with her disabilities with class and dignity.
Eventually, her disabilities forced her to request a reduced workweek schedule, which the FMLA entitled her to receive, and the company approved her request. Shortly thereafter, however, the company brought in new management, and our client’s new manager fired her “for medical reasons.”
Our firm reached out to the company, and told it we would sue on our client’s behalf under the FMLA, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act if it was not interested in a monetary resolution.
The company initially did what most wrongdoers do and tried to turn the tables on our client by accusing her of misconduct. The company also made the legal argument that her reduced workweek schedule caused an undue hardship on its business. When our firm pointed out that the company’s legal defense–at bottom, that it decided it didn’t want to comply with her FMLA entitlement anymore–only bolstered the merits of our case, the company did the right thing and offered to settle for a favorable amount.
JRW Law obtains judgment in unpaid overtime wages case.
Our client worked as a receptionist for a real estate company. She frequently worked more than 40 hours per week, but her employer never paid her the overtime wages the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) entitled her to receive. For months, she didn’t complain to her employer because she feared that it would retaliate against her; in this economy, she was happy to have a job. But she finally said “enough is enough” and stood up for herself by demanding back pay of her overtime wages. As she predicted, the owner fired her the next week. Our firm sued the employer on our client’s behalf for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation.
For over a year the employer and its lawyer belittled our client, our firm, and the merits of her case. But on June 24, 2014, Carver County District Court Judge Eide entered judgment in favor of our client, finding that her employer failed to pay her overtime wages in violation the FLSA. The case will now proceed to trial where the jury will deliberate on our client’s retaliation claim and decide how much to award her in damages on her unpaid wages claim.
JRW Law receives favorable decision from Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Believing that a grocery store employee had given him expired food for free, our client walked past the registers without making any effort to pay for three packages of chicken. Minneapolis police officers arrested him for theft. On the first day of our client’s trial, he was also charged with violating the Minneapolis disorderly conduct ordinance, because he allegedly shouted when he was wrongfully accused of theft.
Tim Phillips represented our client at trial. A Hennepin County jury returned a not guilty verdict as to the theft charge and a guilty verdict as to the disorderly conduct charge. Mr. Phillips promptly appealed the guilty verdict to the Court of Appeals.
At the Court of Appeals, Mr. Phillips argued that the Minneapolis disorderly conduct ordinance must be narrowly construed so as not to criminalize constitutionally protected expression. He asserted that the trial court’s instructions to the jury, to which he had objected, did not fully protect our client’s right to freedom of speech. The Court of Appeals ruled in our client’s favor, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as Mr. Phillips requested. The Court remanded the case for a new trial due to the jury instruction error. The prosecutor subsequently dismissed the case.
JRW Law beats back summary judgment in police excessive force case.
Our client, who was thirteen years old at the time, was riding in the front passenger seat of a car driven by his friend. A police chase began. He asked to be let out of the car, but his friend didn’t stop. After the chase ended, a police officer grabbed our client, pulled him through the car’s open window, and brought him to the ground. Another officer kicked him three or four times in the face, fracturing his left cheekbone. Our firm sued the police officers on our client’s behalf for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The other side asked the Court to dismiss our client’s claims, but the judge rejected that request with respect to the officer who kicked him.
JRW Law recovers $42,000 in illegal car search case.
Our client, a father of three, was dropping his kids off at their grandparents’ house in St. Paul. What should have been a routine drop off for our client turned into an ordeal, as a St. Paul police officer stopped his car and searched it without a warrant in violation of the Constitution. Our firm sued the City of St. Paul and the officer on our client’s behalf for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. Our client offered to settle for a very reasonable amount at the outset of the case. Instead of doing the right thing and accepting our offer, the City of St. Paul belittled our firm, our client, and the merits of this case. After two years of contentious litigation, we went to trial, where the judge confirmed what we knew to be the case all along: this was a bad search. The City then settled for over $42,000, as reported by the St. Paul Pioneer Press, an amount thousands and thousands of dollars more than what it could have settled for had it done the right thing early in the case.
JRW Law recovers lost wages for client in FMLA case. Our client, a Director of Human Resources, went out on approved FMLA leave. Without providing any reason, her employer terminated her on the day she returned to work. We initiated litigation on her behalf and settled the case for more than four times the severance payment her employer initially offered.
JRW Law settles Minnesota Health Records Act case for fair amount. Our client was employed by a large health care system for almost 10 years. She has battled depression, which eventually led to her being hospitalized for several weeks at a hospital within the system that employed her. During her hospitalization, one of her co-workers accessed her health records without authorization or a legitimate business reason in violation of the Minnesota Health Records Act. The hospital initially took the position that it wasn’t liable for the co-worker’s unlawful access. It also belittled our client’s claims by taking the position that the co-worker’s invasion of our client’s privacy didn’t cause our client to suffer any real harm. But after we formally served the hospital with a lawsuit, it did a quick about-face and offered to settle for a fair amount.
JRW Law resolves drug testing case for equitable amount.
Our client, a twelve-year employee, was forced to undergo urine testing despite his employer’s lack of a written drug and alcohol testing policy. This violated the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA), which states that an employer may not request or require an employee to undergo drug or alcohol testing unless the testing is done pursuant to a written policy. Our client’s employer then terminated him on the basis of a positive test result from an initial screening test that was never verified by a confirmatory test. This also violated the DATWA. Instead of immediately filing a lawsuit against the employer, we sent a letter providing them with an opportunity to correct their mistake. After an initial lowball offer, the employer did the right thing by settling the dispute for a fair amount within sixteen days of receiving our letter.
Court approves settlement agreement in Broadway High School class action lawsuit.
On December 13, 2013, the Honorable Laurie Miller of the Hennepin County District Court entered an Order approving a Class Action Settlement Agreement between the Minneapolis Public School District and certain students who attended Broadway High School in Minneapolis during the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years. The Settlement Agreement is available here. Broadway High School is an alternative school within the Minneapolis public school district. Students at Broadway, including the named Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, were all pregnant or parenting teen mothers. During the 2008-09 through 2010-11 school years, Broadway regularly assigned unlicensed persons to instruct classes in violation of state law. Additionally, Broadway regularly assigned teachers to instruct classes beyond the scope of their licensure, also in violation of state law. Classes taught by unlicensed or underlicensed persons included both life skills classes (e.g., parenting and culinary arts) as well as core academic classes (e.g., math and social studies). The Broadway students thought that credits earned in those classes would count towards graduation. But, in fact, when school district officials learned about the unlicensed and underlicensed instruction at Broadway, they told the students that credits earned in core classes taught by unlicensed individuals or otherwise unqualified individuals would be reallocated as elective credits. That decision rendered those credits essentially worthless. Almost three years after learning about Broadway’s unlawful conduct–and a year after my firm started a lawsuit on their behalf–the named Plaintiffs, Angel Foreman, Deneazra Burns, and Genny Pongsak, vindicated the Broadway students’ rights when the Minneapolis School District agreed to settle their class action claims for a total amount equal to $409,934. As part of the settlement the District agreed to pay my firm’s fees on top of this amount, which means that not one cent of the settlement amount will go towards attorney fees. If you attended Broadway during the 2008-09, 2009-10, or 2010-11 school years you may be eligible for a portion of the settlement funds. To determine your eligibility, please complete and return the initial claim form, which is available here.
JRW Law obtains judgment against City of Minneapolis in Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) case. Our client, a non-profit organization, seeks to increase oversight and accountability of police agencies with respect to police misconduct. In October 2012, the organization asked the City of Minneapolis to provide it with a list of all complaints filed with the Civilian Review Authority (CRA), including the name of each complainant and his or her contact information, for a period of 28 months. Minneapolis provided the list, but didn’t include complainant contact information for complaints designated as pending or open. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) required Minneapolis to provide such data, because it constitutes public data under the MGDPA. Instead of immediately filing a lawsuit against the City, however, we sent a letter providing the City with an opportunity to correct its mistake. Yet the City refused, so we were forced to initiate a lawsuit. On May 16, 2013, Judge Sipkins agreed with us that “the names of, and contact information for, complainants on pending and open CRA complaints is public information.” He ordered the City to supply our client with the requested data within 15 days and to pay our client’s attorney fees.
JRW Law settles service animal disability discrimination claim for equitable amount. Our client is a sweet, thoughtful young man who suffers from a seizure disorder. If he has a seizure and does not take his anti-seizure medication immediately, he could die. His seizure disorder requires him to use the assistance of a service animal, an amazing dog named “Hope.” If our client suffers from a seizure, Hope retrieves his medication for him and alerts someone for help. Our client walked into a big box retailer with Hope to purchase a video game console and the store manager immediately confronted him about his service animal. Our client has dealt with people in authority questioning him about Hope before, so he always carries documentation showing that Hope is not a pet, but a service animal. Even though my client showed these materials to the store manager, the manager kicked him out of the store and called the police on him. Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, it is illegal for retailers and other places of public accommodation to discriminate against people who require the assistance of service animals. We brought a lawsuit under the Act on our client’s behalf. To the company’s credit, they did the right thing and immediately settled for a fair amount, and even agreed to give him a meaningful apology. Both our client and Hope are pleased with the outcome.
JRW Law files putative class action lawsuit against Minnesota DNR. My client was one of 5,000 people whose personal and private driver information was accessed by a DNR employee–whom the DNR identified as John Hunt–without a legitimate government purpose. State and federal laws make this conduct illegal. A federal law called the Drivers Protection Privacy Act (“DPPA”) entitles anyone whose private driver information is unlawfully accessed to at least $2,500 in liquidated damages for each violation. If you are one of the people affected by the data breach, contact my office and I can help you vindicate your rights under the DPPA.
JRW Law obtains favorable outcome in unpaid overtime wages case. My client–a hard-working, first-generation immigrant–worked as a driver for a chiropractic clinic. For three years, he worked six- and seven-day work weeks for 10 to 12 hours a day driving patients to and from the clinic. The clinic never paid him overtime, and fired him when he complained about its failure to pay him the wages he was entitled to receive under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). I sued the clinic on his behalf. The clinic initially took the position that the fancy title it gave him, “Director of Transportation,” exempted it from paying him overtime wages under the FLSA. When the clinic figured out that my client and I weren’t backing down from our lawsuit, however, it did the right thing and paid him twice the amount of overtime wages it owed him, an amount equal to almost two years’ salary.
JRW Law recovers amount equal to three times client’s lost wages in race discrimination/harassment/retaliation lawsuit. My client, a journeyman carpenter, was the only Black person working on a 300-person worksite. His co-workers repeatedly subjected him to racial harassment, culminating in his foreman waiving a noose in front of his face and telling him, “it works.” My client complained about the harassment and was fired a week later. The employer, shockingly, denied any wrongdoing. Contrary to the employer’s position, courts–including Minnesota courts–have held that such conduct violates the law: “A noose is often employed as a racist symbol.” Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., 614 F.3d 1132, 1142 (10th Cir. 2008). “Like ‘a slave-masters whip,’ the image of a noose is ‘deeply a part of this country’s collective consciousness and history, any [further] explanation of how one could infer a racial motive appears quite unnecessary.'” Id. citing Johnson v. Potter, 177 F.Supp.2d 961, 965 (D. Minn. 2001). The employer eventually did the right thing and settled for an equitable amount.
Office vindicates client’s rights in disability discrimination/FMLA case. My client suffered from deep depression that led him to attempt suicide. He survived the attempt and took leave from his job to care for his mental health condition. His employer–a Fortune 500 company–fired him in retaliation for his exercise of leave. Additionally, the employer required my client to provide medical documentation proving that he was “100% healed” before it allowed him to return to work, and “100% healed” policies are illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I sued the company on the client’s behalf, and the case settled for an amount close to my client’s lost wages; the exact number is confidential.
Office recovers favorable settlement in police brutality case. We settled the case–where my client did not suffer any permanent damages or pay any out-of-pocket medical expenses–with the City of Minneapolis for an undisclosed amount.
Office obtains $90,000 settlement in “Wigger Day” case. The case–which established that Minnesota schools can be liable for their deliberate indifference to student-on-student racial harassment–settled for $90,000.
Office obtains favorable ruling in police misconduct case. My client was walking down a street in Minneapolis and minding his own business when two police officers beat him up. My client suffered a broken rib and urinated blood for a week. The officers argued that since they encountered my client in a rough part of town at around midnight, they were entitled to assume that he was engaged in criminal activity. They can’t do that. I sued the officers and the City of Minneapolis on my client’s behalf in federal court. We requested the Court to find that the arrest was unlawful as a matter of law and the Court granted our request. The case will proceed to trial where the jury will decide how much money to award my client in damages. Please click here to view the Court’s order.
Office makes new law in “Wigger Day” case. My client was one of a handful of Black students at Red Wing High School. Her White classmates organized a racist event called “Wigger Day” (i.e., “White Nigger”), and the school district turned a blind eye to the unlawful conduct, allowing it to become a school tradition. I sued the school district on her behalf under state and federal law in federal court. The school district requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit, but the court denied the request and allowed the lawsuit to continue. Please click here to view the Court’s order. The case continues to receive media coverage.
Office settles false repossession lawsuit. My client’s dream of home ownership was cut short when his employer laid him off, and his townhouse went into foreclosure because he couldn’t afford his monthly payments. My client was not subverting the foreclosure process in any way, yet the lender unlawfully removed and threw away all his possessions. We sued the bank and resolved the case in a confidential settlement; the exact amount far exceeds the value of the trashed property.
A.L. Brown joins Office as Of Counsel. I am pleased to announce that A.L. Brown, a graduate of Hamline University School of Law and former Law Clerk to Chief Judge Davis of the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, has joined the Office as Of Counsel. The focus of Brown’s practice is representing plaintiffs in consumer protection, civil rights, and class action lawsuits.
Office obtains favorable settlement in employment case. I recovered an amount equal to more than seven times the amount of my client’s lost wages in a race discrimination case.
Williams publishes new book. I am pleased to announce the publication of my new book, LAWYER 2.0 How to Build a Six-Figure Solo Practice in 12 Months or Less: Essential Technology for Solo Practitioners. I invite you to visit the book’s companion website.
Office recovers lost wages and emotional harm damages in race discrimination case. I negotiated an agreement–the terms of which are confidential–in my client’s case brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. My client is very satisfied with the outcome.
Senate votes to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In a very important development for gay rights, both houses of Congress voted to repeal DADT. I applaud lawmakers for having the wisdom and the courage to do the right thing.
Office helps client recover lost wages in FMLA case. I negotiated an agreement that awarded an amount equal to six months’ wages.
Office obtains favorable outcome in race and disability discrimination case. I obtained a favorable outcome–the terms of which are confidential–in my client’s claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. My client alleged that her employer terminated her because of her race, and refused to reasonably accommodate her disability.
Office obtains favorable outcome in another FMLA case. I obtained an amount equal to my client’s lost wages, litigation costs, and attorney fees in his claims brought under the FMLA. My client alleged that his employer refused to reinstate him following his exercise of FMLA-protected leave.
Office obtains favorable outcome in race discrimination case. I obtained a favorable outcome–the terms of which are confidential–in a case against my client’s former employer arising under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).
Firm obtains favorable outcome in FMLA case. I obtained an amount more than twice as much as my client’s lost wages in her claims brought under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Office goes paperless. In an effort to save time, resources, and the environment, I have utilized available technology to take my office nearly 100% paperless. As a result, I can now locate and access any office document–including complete client files–in less than 30 seconds from anywhere in the world with an internet connection.
Firm obtains favorable outcome in another disability discrimination case. I obtained a five-digit amount where my client suffered less than $200 ineconomic damages in a case brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Firm obtains favorable outcome in disability discrimination case. I obtained an amount in excess of my client’s lost wages and lost benefits in a disability discrimination case brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The exact amount is confidential.
Man represented by the Office files discrimination lawsuit against the City of Burnsville. The lawsuit, filed in state district court, alleges that City of Burnsville police officers violated my client’s rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (the “MHRA”) when they subjected him to an unlawful search and seizure and called him the “n word.”
Man represented by the Office recovers settlement in police misconduct lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The police chief of a city in the state of Minnesota violated my client’s constitutional and civil rights when it arrested him without probable cause and detained him for a night in jail. The case settled for $25,000.
Williams obtains favorable outcome in FMLA case. I obtained an amount in excess of my client’s lost wages in his FMLA lawsuit against his former employer.
Man represented by the Office brings lawsuit under the Minnesota Health Records Act. The lawsuit, brought in state district court, alleges that an employee of Dakota County disclosed my client’s health records without permission in violation of the Minnesota Health Records Act. My client is seeking compensation for emotional harm.
Williams obtains favorable outcome in race discrimination, harassment, and reprisal case. I obtained an amount in excess of one year’s wages in my client’s lawsuit against his former employer arising under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
Man represented by the Office files lawsuit under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The lawsuit, filed in federal district court on April 8, 2010, alleges that my client’s former employer violated his rights guaranteed by the FMLA when it terminated him two days after he requested time off from work to receive treatment for a skin infection that left his leg so swollen he could not fit his work boot on over his foot. My client is seeking compensation for lost wages.
Man represented by the Office files lawsuit under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The lawsuit, filed in federal district court on February 22, 2010, alleges that my client’s former employer violated his rights guaranteed by the FMLA when it terminated him for taking leave to care for his pregnant wife, who was experiencing pre-labor contractions. My client is seeking compensation for lost wages.
Williams negotiates favorable settlement in sexual harassment case. I achieved a favorable outcome – the terms of which are confidential – for my client even though she could not produce any tangible evidence of harassment by her former employer or locate any witnesses willing to testify on her behalf.