Fort Lauderdale Employment Attorney
Having the right employment law attorney on your side can provide you peace of mind — and make the difference between an unacceptable situation and a favorable resolution. Employment laws change often as Congress and state legislatures pass new bills; and courts interpret existing laws in new ways. Employment law issues involve a complex mix of both federal and state statutes. That is why it is important for Illinois businesses and employees to contact an employment lawyer who is well-versed in both federal and Illinois employment law when they need legal assistance.
Whatever work-related legal challenges you grapple with, the Law Office of Nnamdi S. Jackson can provide you with up-to-date, on-target information and recommendations appropriate to your specific employment law situation. We are a law firm dedicated to resolving your workplace concerns.
Whether you are a business, senior executive, mid-level manager, or perform clerical or blue collar work, Mr. Jackson will personally manage your case and make sure you are fully informed about all of your options. It is his goal to always get the best possible result for each client. The Law Office of Nnamdi S. Jackson, P.A. serves Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and surrounding areas.
Fort Lauderdale Business Tort Attorney: Breach of Contract, Unfair Business Practices, Business Fraud, Trademark Infringement, Interference with Economic Relationship, Trade Secret Disclosure, and Business Disparagement
Our South Florida business litigation attorney represents entrepreneurs, professionals, small businesses, inventors, and private companies as plaintiffs and defendants in a range of business litigation matters: Business Disputes, Breach of Contract, Partnership Disputes, Unfair Competition, Trade Secret Disclosure, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unfair Business Practices, Business Fraud, Shareholder Disputes. Business litigation can involve simple business transactions as well as complex business transactions, sometimes involving thousands of pages of corporate legal documents. Prosecuting or defending such lawsuits requires detailed investigation and preparation.
Our firm understands that litigation is significant for small businesses – it can be time consuming and costly. We understand that many business owners, particularly start-ups, lack the resources, both financial and operational, to handle diversions from their daily business transactions. For most South Florida start-ups and small businesses, generally surviving on small profit margins, business litigation costs can often prove disastrous. Although business litigation expenses can be tax deductible and expensed in most cases, the time cost and lost production of a small business is extremely burdensome for the business owner. For that reason, our attorneys are sensitive to the legal fees necessary to properly defend or prosecute a business matter and will do whatever we can to provide flexible fees and billing options.
At every stage of the business litigation process, from evaluation of claims, staffing and initial strategy development, to document and information management, through discovery and trial preparation, settlement or verdict, our South Florida business litigation lawyers are cognizant of client needs and zealous in our representation of those clients.
Business Tort and Employment Lawyer News
Siding with the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), a D.C. federal court judge found the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) wellness rules with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
With the goal of providing greater clarity to employers about the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) to workplace wellness programs consistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a pair of final rules last year.
On Monday, October 2, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. This case will finally solve an important question: whether workplace arbitration agreements that ban class actions violate federal labor laws. The case pits the U.S. Justice Department directly against the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). The NLRB argues that arbitration agreements often violate federal labor law and let companies evade their responsibilities under workplace statutes. Since 2012, the NLRB has held that individual arbitration clauses violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act makes it illegal for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise” of their right “to engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of … mutual aid or protection.”
In 2014, Lenovo began bundling a third-party adware program called “Superfish” into its consumer PCs. Now, nearly three years later, the company is facing the consequences. Recently, Lenovo settled a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission over the Superfish adware, agreeing to get affirmative consent for any future adware programs, as well as audited security checks of their software for the next 20 years.
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Masterpiece case arose when Lakewood, Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held that Phillips had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
In October 2016, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) under the Obama Administration issued a joint Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals. Among other things, the HR Guidance announced that so-called “naked” agreements among employers not to recruit employees or not to compete on employee compensation would be considered per se violations of the antitrust laws and prosecuted criminally.
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to prospective whistleblowers in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers (February 21, 2018), making it more difficult to bring a retaliation claim under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The justices said that a part of the Dodd-Frank Act that protects a whistleblower from being fired, demoted or harassed only applies to people who report legal violations to the SEC.
On March 7th, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals held that a supervisor’s one-time sexual advance out of the workplace can meet requirements to pursue a retaliation claim under Florida law, in a ruling that called for a new trial in a police dispatcher’s suit claiming a local police chief lashed out after she declined his advances.
In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, __ U.S. __ (2018), Epic Systems involved consolidated appeals from the Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. In each case, an employee signed an employment contract denoting that the employee would arbitrate any disputes arising between the employee and the employer and providing further that the arbitration would occur on an individualized basis, with claims “pertaining to different employees to be heard in separate proceedings.” After a dispute arose between a particular employer and employee, the employee attempted to pursue his or her claims as a class action. The employer sought to compel individual arbitration, and the circuit courts split on whether contracts mandating individualized arbitration violates the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 157, by barring employees from engaging in “concerted acvitit[y].”
A South Beach hotel agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of 17 fired Haitian dishwashers, the federal authorities said Monday. According to the lawsuit, the dishwashers at restaurants in said South Beach hotel were called “slaves” by chefs and forbidden from speaking Creole despite Hispanic employees being allowed to speak Spanish. The lawsuit also said the Haitian workers were singled out for difficult tasks from which other employees were exempt. When the dishwashers reported the discrimination to the hotel’s human resources department, the entire staff of dishwashers was fired in April 2014, the lawsuit said.
In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held on November 6, 2018, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) applies to all public employers regardless of the number of employees. The ADEA protects individuals 40 years or older from unlawful discrimination in the workplace.