 |
|
|
|
| Employment Advice and Executive Advocacy | ||
 |
||
 |
The firm often advises clients about their rights on entering or terminating employment or consulting agreements. Our clients range from mid-level professionals to upper-level executives. Requesting a consultation Initial consultation: $300 (up to 1 hour) Employment disputes tend to be fact-intensive. In most cases, before being able to advise a client about his or her rights and the various courses of action available, a lawyer must have an understanding of the employer's business, the working environment, and the employee's responsibilities and performance over a period of months or years. This initial consultation includes a review of the client's problem and objectives, the background facts, an explanation of the legal process and applicable law, and a discussion of strategy and fees. If you decide to retain the firm, this meeting is followed by the execution of a written fee agreement and formulation of a plan of action. Please do not send details of your case by email. We cannot review any details of your case until we have verified that the firm has no conflicts of interest (for example, we cannot discuss your case with you if we represent an adverse party). If you call and leave a voice message, your call will be returned within 24 hours. We check voice mail several times a day and on weekends. |
|
| Examples of cases handled: | ||
|
||
| Employment Contract Litigation | The firm has represented several high-level executives in claims against their former employers, seeking to enforce rights to contractual severance, equity, and other benefits. | |
|
||
| Severance Agreements | Frequently, we have been engaged by clients who have been terminated or laid off by their employers. We advise clients concerning their rights and have negotiated dozens of severance agreements with employers and their counsel. | |
|
||
| Non-competition and Non-solicitation Agreements | The firm regularly advises employees and employers concerning their rights and liabilities under non-competition and non-solicitation agreements and has represented clients in disputes involving such agreements. Although many Massachusetts employees have signed such agreements, the courts do not always enforce them to the letter because of public policy considerations favoring a free market and disfavoring anti-competitive covenants. This means that employees and future employers may be less restricted by a non-competition agreement than they realize. | |
|
||
| Sexual Harassment | During 2003 through 2006, the firm defended a middle manager whose administrative assistant claimed that he had created a sexually hostile work environment and that he had retaliated against her when she complained to the company. After deposing the plaintiff, we moved for summary judgment. Although the Superior Court judge denied summary judgment as to some of the employee’s claims, the motion exposed serious weaknesses in her case. Shortly before trial, the employee accepted the employer company's settlement offer and dismissed her remaining claim against our client. In a civil enforcement action brought by the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against a business owner, in which the EEOC alleged that a sexually hostile environment existed that amounted to sexual harassment, David defended the business owner. The case was litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, before eventually being settled through mediation. |
|
|
||
| Civil Rights | In 2001 through 2003, the firm defended one of several Boston police officers who had been sued in federal court for alleged federal and state civil rights violations. After taking the plaintiff’s deposition, the firm moved for summary judgment. The court allowed the motion and dismissed all claims. Williams v. City of Boston et al., 213 F.R.D. 99 (2003). | |
|
||
|
||
|
top of page | |
Legal Disclaimer