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.
Employment Lawyer News
U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County addressed whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination is broad enough to encompass sexual orientation, transgender status, and gender identity. The decision consolidated three cases. In each of these cases, an employer allegedly fired a long-time employee simply for being homosexual or transgender. As the Court stated, “Clayton County, Georgia, fired Gerald Bostock for conduct ‘unbecoming’ a county employee shortly after he began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Altitude Express fired Donald Zarda days after he mentioned being gay. And R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes fired Aimee Stephens, who presented as a male when she was hired, after she informed her employer that she planned to ‘live and work full-time as a woman.’ Each employee sued, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The 6-3 decision, delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holds that these workers are now protected against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
COVID-19 and OSHA’s Recordkeeping Requirements
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recordkeeping requirements at 29 CFR Part 1904 mandate covered employers record certain work-related injuries and illnesses on their OSHA 300 log forms. On April 10, 2020, OSHA issued additional guidance for employers on their obligations to record COVID-19 cases.
Two Florida Medical Marijuana Bills Proposed to Give Employee Protection
Two Democratic lawmakers, state Sen. Lori Berman of Delray Beach and state Rep. Tina Polsky of Boca Raton, filed the Medical Marijuana Employee Protection Act (bills SB 962 and HB 595) ahead of Florida’s 2020 legislative session, which has been on going.
Under Florida’s Constitution, employers are not required to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace. Both bills (SB 962; HB 595), if passed, would extend to both private- and public-sector employees and employment applicants in Florida. If passed, one of the new rights these bills would provide to employees is the right to sue an employer if the employer takes an adverse employment action due to an employee’s status as a legal medical marijuana user.
Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court decided New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira. The Supreme Court ruled that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce—including those labeled as independent contractors—are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and thus cannot be compelled to undergo mandatory arbitration. Justice Gorsuch, writing for a unanimous Court, held that plaintiff Dominic Oliveira, a trucker driving for defendant New Prime, had the right to litigate his wage and hour claims in court, rather than have them decided by an arbitrator.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether federal courts have the authority to waive a Title VII plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), or state equivalent, before filing a complaint in federal court. A person who wants to sue under Title VII (or other federal employment anti-discrimination laws) must first file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. This is known as “administrative exhaustion.” The case before the Supreme Court is Fort Bend County v. Davis.
Lois Davis, an IT supervisor for Fort Bend County, Texas, sued Fort Bend County in federal district court, alleging retaliation and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Davis claims she was fired for not reporting to work on a Sunday (she attended a church service), in retaliation for reporting that she was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by a superior. She filed sexual harassment and retaliation charges with the Texas Workforce Commission. After investigating, the Commission told her she could sue and she brought a retaliation and religious discrimination lawsuit against Fort Bend. Fort Bend pointed out she didn’t exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge of religious discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission. After several appeals, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling dismissing Davis’ claim. In its reversal, the Fifth Circuit ruled that a federal court could hear Title VII claims even if the plaintiff had not completed an administrative process required under Title VII because Fort Bend waived the defense by waiting five years to raise it.