Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP has been extremely successful in litigating all types of employment disputes. We have an extensive track record of winning jury trials, prevailing on motions, and obtaining favorable settlements. Our employment and labor attorneys handle cases involving every type of employment claim, including allegations of discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, age, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, and other factors as well as regularly defend claims for unlawful retaliation. We represent clients in a significant and growing number of cases involving allegations of wrongful termination under a wide variety of common law tort and contract theories.
In addition to defending clients against unlawful termination claims, our employment lawyers protect our clients’ trade secrets and enforce their noncompetition agreements by obtaining restraining orders and permanent injunctive relief. Drawing on their extensive litigation experience, these lawyers also emphasize risk reduction and counseling in all of these areas. This has proven very useful to clients planning to adopt or rewrite employee handbooks and manuals, drug and alcohol testing programs, personnel policies, or planning other personnel actions ranging from terminations of individual employees to large-scale layoffs and reductions in force.
We also have experience in the more traditional areas of labor law. In particular, we represent clients in arbitration proceedings under collective bargaining agreements, union organizing campaigns, and collective bargaining negotiations. We have been involved in advising clients in matters relating to concerted employee activity, union recognition and bargaining, and other issues related to employer-union relations.
Please join us for a seminar that will focus on the Colorado Wage Act, the Wage Protection Act of 2014, and related provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Our speakers will provide an overview of the Wage Protection Act as well as key changes, which will go into effect on January 1, 2015. This briefing will offer answers to important questions about the changes in the law as well as existing provisions.
The 2014 edition of the Chambers USA ranked Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP first in Colorado in the areas of Corporate/M&A and Natural Resources & Environment. Chambers USA also recognized DGS for its strong Labor & Employment and Commercial Litigation practices.
Please join us for this seminar that will focus on changes in Colorado and federal employment laws and will provide practical guidance to ensure compliance. Our guest speaker, Peter Wingate, Deputy Director of the Colorado Division of Labor, will discuss wage and hour issues affecting Colorado employers. DGS partners Janet Savage and Brett Painter will then share answers to some commonly-asked legal questions.
Please join us for this seminar that will focus on the practical and legal implications for employers resulting from the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Our Guest Speaker, Ashley Kilroy, Denver's Executive Director for Marijuana Policy, will share her insight on the first 30 days of legalized recreational marijuana sales in Colorado. DGS attorneys Kristi Walton and Sybil Kisken will then share answers to your questions, as well as to some commonly-asked legal questions about how Colorado's legalization of marijuana impacts the workplace
Please join us for this seminar that will focus on changes in Colorado and federal employment laws and will provide practical guidance to ensure compliance.
Topics will include the Colorado Family Care Act, Marijuana in the workplace, Colorado Civil Unions Act, Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Colorado Employment Opportunity Act and its impact on employee credit checks, and Colorado and federal developments regarding social media.
FMA & HUB 401(k) Symposium
Forty-five DGS attorneys were named Best Lawyers® by publisher Woodward/White, Inc. in its annual guide recognizing legal excellence.
The 2012 edition of the Chambers USA ranked Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP first in Colorado in the areas of Corporate/M&A and Natural Resources & Environment. Chambers USA also recognized DGS for its strong Commercial Litigation and Labor & Employment practices.
Denver Business Journal
News reports that some employers have begun to ask job candidates for their Facebook passwords have stirred a national debate over workers’ right to privacy. The issue also may have you rethinking those photos you posted of yourself doing tequila shots and pole dancing at your neighborhood bar.
The 2010 edition of the Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business today ranked Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP first in Colorado in the areas of corporate law, including mergers and acquisitions, and natural resources and environmental law, which includes the traditional and renewable energy sectors and the mining industry. Chambers also recognized DGS for its strong general commercial and employment litigation practices.
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP has been recognized again in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business in the areas of Environmental, Corporate/M&A, Labor & Employment and Commercial Litigation.
Colorado Municipal League
This quarter’s employment alert focuses on recent activity by Congress and the U.S. Department of Labor with respect to the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), and activity by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding a rule about employee health benefits.
Davis Graham & Stubbs ranked in the top tier of Colorado business law firms in the fields of Commercial Litigation and Environmental Law in the just-released 2007 edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. DGS was also recognized in the fields of corporate mergers and acquisitions, labor and employment, and real estate.
Davis Graham & Stubbs is offering a complimentary breakfast briefing on Thursday, March 8, 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. in their offices. The seminar, “Immigration Issues for Construction and Real Estate Employers,” is hosted by the firm’s Real Estate Group to brief developers, homebuilders and contractors about immigration laws, both federal and state, and how they impact construction and real estate employers in Colorado.
Davis Graham & Stubbs is offering its popular Annual Employment Law Update seminars Wednesday, November 1 at the Hotel Denver Tech, Thursday, November 2 at the Davis Graham LoDo offices, and Wednesday, November 8 at the Westin Westminster. Each year at this free half-day seminar, the experienced employment attorneys at Davis Graham address the most pressing labor law topics, this year including harassment in the workplace, ADA and FMLA challenges, retaliation issues, the contingent worker alternative, and electronic age employment issues.
Davis Graham & Stubbs is offering a complimentary breakfast briefing on Tuesday, August 22nd, 8:00-9:00 a.m. in their offices. The seminar, “Getting Ready for Colorado’s New Immigration Enforcement Law” is co-sponsored with CRS Insurance Brokerage and Daniels Benefit Specialists and will inform employers about the new immigration law in Colorado going into effect August 1, and the implications of this law for employers.
Davis Graham & Stubbs is offering a complimentary breakfast briefing on the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act on Thursday, June 15, 8:00-9:00 a.m. in their offices. “FMLA & ADA Bootcamp” is co-sponsored with CRS Insurance Brokerage and Daniels Benefit Specialists to advise employers how to comply with requirements of Title I of the ADA and the FMLA. Davis Graham employment partner Janet Savage will be the featured speaker for the briefing. Ms. Savage has 25 years experience counseling companies on labor and employment issues and defending discrimination and harassment claims in significant litigation.
On April 5th, Janet Savage, Andy Low and Dale Harris won a major victory in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Heno v. Sprint/United Management Co., the Tenth Circuit reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff in a race discrimination case.
It has always been difficult for employers to get discrimination cases dismissed before trial. The United States Supreme Court now has made it more difficult. In a June 2000 decision, the high court ruled that an employee protected by one of the federal anti-discrimination statutes can win a discrimination case merely by persuading the jury that the reason given by an employer for its action was not the true reason.
I. When is an Employee “Disabled” within the Meaning of the ADA? Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 122 S.Ct. 681 (2002)
A. Facts and lower court decisions.
Although claims of constructive discharge and hostile work environment have long been litigated in employment cases in the federal courts, the Supreme Court has only recently considered a claim combining the two doctrines.
On April 20, 2004, in an attempt to better accommodate the realities of the modern workplace, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) published regulations changing the standards governing whether employees are exempt from the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The new regulations go into effect on August 23, 2004 and will affect the overtime eligibility of workers.
Introduction. The legislature significantly revised Colorado’s Wage Act this year. The amendments took effect in August 2003 and are largely employer-friendly. By understanding the nature and impact of the new revisions, employers can more effectively protect themselves against claims under the Act.
In this section, we look at the current state of employment law related ADR.
Three federal statutes often come into play when employers are faced with the issue of how to treat certain absences from work. These federal laws are:
In recent years, juries have awarded high damages, often in the millions, to plaintiffs in employment cases. Although these awards are often reduced later by court action, juries are sending a message to the employer about the conduct giving rise to the lawsuit. In many cases, the facts underlying million dollar verdicts have included egregious conduct by the employer or by coworkers. However, it is sometimes lack of action, or actions taken with good intentions, that give rise to “bad facts.” A “bad fact” is one which may not support, or even suggest, a finding of liability, but makes the circumstances at issue “smell bad.” In this respect, the jury in an employment case is unique. Most jurors are or have been employees themselves and, therefore, often can easily relate to and sympathize with the plaintiff. As a result, jurors (who can readily put themselves in the plaintiff’s shoes) may find against the employer where the employer has treated the plaintiff in a way that the juror finds unacceptable or offensive, even if not illegal.
I. Employee Theft
American Bar Association
Plaintiffs suing their former employers for wrongful discharge or employment discrimination often sue their individual supervisors and co-workers as well. In suits by former employees for wrongful discharge or employment discrimination, the alleged conduct of a fellow employee is usually the basis for the lawsuit. Defense attorneys in these cases are often faced with the decision of whether to undertake joint representation of both the defendant employer and the defendant employee.
After ten years of litigation and training, employers are becoming increasingly proactive in eliminating sexual harassment from the workplace. They are doing so through a variety of strategies, including (a) establishing strong policies prohibiting sexual harassment, (b) educating their employees concerning those policies and complaint procedures, (c) promptly investigating complaints of sexual harassment, and (d) taking effective corrective action where sexual harassment is found to exist.
Every year in the United States, over a million people become the victims of some form of workplace violence. In a recent survey, more than half of the companies polled reported at least one of their workers had been attacked, stalked, threatened, or killed on the job within the last five years. Too often, we read about these frightening statistics in daily newspapers, which frequently contain headlines of violent confrontations in the workplace.
I. What Is Invasion of Privacy?
A. Restatement (Second) of Torts, ' 652A, identifies four separate torts
1. Unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; 2. Appropriation of the other's name or likeness; 3. Unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life; and 4. Publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public.
Yu Stromberg Cleveland, P.C.
In many of today’s highly competitive industries, information and knowledge truly represent power in the marketplace. Of course, to unleash the power and profitability of the information, employers often must impart proprietary information and knowledge to their employees. In order to insulate proprietary information from business competitors, employers frequently attempt to protect their competitive business advantages by requiring their employees
to sign employment contracts containing covenants not to compete, non-disclosure provisions,
and non-solicitation provisions.
In Taylor v. Pepsi-Cola Company, 196 F. 3d 1106 (10th Cir. 1999), the Tenth Circuit held that Pepsi- Cola Company ("Pepsi") did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") when it discharged the plaintiff after he was unable to tell the company when he would be able to return to work following a work-related injury and to what position.
Each year, employers in Colorado are faced with an increasing number of defamation claims in employment lawsuits. Whether the claim originates from a bad reference or an individual who believes he was improperly accused of sexual harassment, employers must be sensitive to the risk of statements made inside and outside the workplace. This risk is magnified by the fact that individual employees can expose the company to liability for their oral and written statements. Knowledge of the following information will help employers to prevent and defend against claims for libel or slander.
When help-wanted notices or advertisements contain terms and phrases, such as "age 25-35," "young," "college student," "recent college graduate," "boy," "girl," or other descriptions of a similar nature, such a term or phrase deters the employment of older persons and is a violation of the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act ("ADEA").
Personnel Law Update 1999
Three federal statutes often come into play when employers are faced with the issue of how to treat certain absences from work. These federal laws are Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Initially, most employers focused on the basic changes necessary to comply with these statutes.
After a long trend of increases in the number of sexual harassment claims, recent statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seem to demonstrate a slight decline in sexual harassment charges. Charges of sexual harassment before the EEOC dropped from 15,889 in 1997 to 15,618 in 1998. This decrease followed a steady increase in charges since 1991 when there were 6,883 EEOC charges involving sexual harassment claims. The total monetary benefits awarded in sexual harassment claims handled by the EEOC dropped as well, from $49.5 million in 1997 to $34.3 million in 1998. While there was a slight increase in probable cause determinations from the EEOC during that same time period, such determinations still remained relatively low at 6.1% of all charges filed.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court handed down two decisions defining the circumstances under which employers can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor against another employee.
Age discrimination is prohibited under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.S. ␣ 621 et seq. (␣ADEA␣). The ADEA was modeled after Title VII which prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Like Title VII, the ADEA deals with all aspects of discrimination in the workplace: hiring, assignments, promotions, compensation, environment, and discharges. The ADEA prohibits age discrimination against individuals who are at least 40 years old. In 1986, the upper age limit of 70 years old was removed so that the statute now prohibits discrimination regardless of whether an employee is beyond the age of 70.