Representative Results

The following is a representative sample of the Firm’s results on recent matters by practice area:

Employment Law

  • In February of 2009, Julie Brennan convinced the Massachusetts Appeals Court to affirm the decision of the Superior Court granting summary judgment, on all claims, to her client.  In the case, the plaintiff alleged that certain documents and verbal statements guaranteed him a partnership position in the Firm’s client, a Big Four accounting firm.  The Appeals Court adopted Julie's argument that the plaintiff was not guaranteed a partnership position.  As a result of the decision of the Appeals Court, the Firm's client was able to avoid a trial.

  • In March of 2008, Julie Brennan convinced a Superior Court Judge to dismiss a retaliation claim under M.G.L. c. 151B against her client and one of its employees. Julie succeeded in convincing the court that because the plaintiff had failed to pursue the retaliation claim at the MCAD, he was precluded from pursuing the claim in court. Moreover, Julie was able to convince the Court to dismiss a sexual harassment claim against the employee of her client who had been sued, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to pursue the claim against the employee at the MCAD and, therefore, was barred from doing so in court.
  • In December of 2007, Julie Brennan and Lisa Cooney obtained summary judgment, on all claims, on behalf of a client. In the case, the plaintiff alleged that certain documents and verbal statements guaranteed him a partnership position in the Firm’s client, a Big Four accounting firm. After extensive discovery, Julie and Lisa filed a summary judgment motion with the Court and convinced the Court to dismiss all of the claims, thereby allowing the Firm’s client to avoid a trial.
  • In November of 2007, Brian Lamkin convinced an arbitrator to dismiss, without a hearing, all claims that a former manager brought against a client for stock options the manager claimed he was owed. The manager alleged that his stock option grant continued for several years after his resignation because he claimed to have “retired” rather than “resigned,” and the option grant contained an extended exercise period in the event of “retirement.” Brian argued successfully that, as a matter of law, the manager did not meet the operative contractual requirements. As a result, the arbitrator dismissed the case entirely. By successfully moving to dismiss at the beginning of the arbitration, Brian not only achieved the desired result, but also saved the client significant expense by avoiding the need for discovery and a hearing.
  • In October of 2007, Julie Brennan obtained yet another Lack of Probable Cause Finding from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination on behalf of a client. The client was accused of religious discrimination by a former employee who is Muslim. The employee alleged that the employer denied him internet access to a religious website and terminated his employment due to his religion. Julie convinced the MCAD of the lack of merit of the complaint, and the MCAD dismissed the complaint.
  • In September of 2007, Lisa Cooney obtained a Lack of Probable Cause Finding and dismissal from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in a case brought against one of the Firm’s clients by a former employee claiming discrimination on the basis of his age and disability and failure to accommodate his disability. The former employee, a help desk employee, had been discharged after repeated complaints from the company's customers that the employee was rude, condescending and unhelpful when responding to customer calls. The MCAD found that the former employee had presented no evidence of discrimination, and could not establish that he was meeting the client's performance expectations.
  • In September of 2007, Brian Lamkin obtained a Lack of Probable Cause Finding and dismissal from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in a case brought against one of the Firm’s clients by a former employee claiming discrimination on the basis of his Middle Eastern origin and religion. The former employee had been asked to resign after the client had received evidence that he was a violent individual who posed a threat to his co-workers. The MCAD found that the former employee had presented no evidence of discrimination, and that the client’s interest in protecting its workforce was a legitimate reason for ending his employment.
  • In December of 2006, Michael Donovan and Christine Fitzgerald represented a Firm client at a two-week NASD arbitration and succeeded in defending the Firm client against claims of wrongful termination, wrongful withholding of wages, and tortious interference with business relations by a former agent. The agent had claimed $9 million in damages.
  • The Firm convinced the Massachusetts Appeals Court to affirm summary judgment in favor of its client on an age discrimination claim. The plaintiff was a long-term employee of the client who was terminated for performance reasons, but claimed she was terminated due to her age.
  • The Firm developed an interactive and comprehensive unlawful harassment training program for a client. Thereafter, the Firm’s attorneys conducted the training for all management staff for the client, on a nationwide basis.
  • The Firm recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of a client on claims involving negligent hiring and retention. The plaintiff alleged that the client had negligently hired and retained a worker who engaged in race discrimination against the plaintiff, a customer. The Firm was able to reaffirm the important legal principle that an employee must have acted within the scope of his employment in order to create liability for his employer.
  • The Firm was successful in obtaining summary judgment for a national insurance company sued by a former employee. Manchel & Brennan argued that the claims against the Firm’s client, each of which was based upon or related to a personal injury to the former employee, were barred, as a matter of law, by the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Statute.
  • The Firm obtained a No Probable Cause Determination on behalf of one of its clients from the Orlando Office of Human Relations concerning a former employee’s gender and pregnancy discrimination claims.
  • The Firm obtained a No Probable Cause Determination on behalf of one of its clients from the Nevada Equal Rights Commission concerning a former employee’s race discrimination claim.
  • The Firm represented two insurance companies and an affiliated broker-dealer in a two week arbitration NASD against their former agent. The Firm's clients asserted breach of contract claims for outstanding debt owed by the former agent. The Firm sought to collect an outstanding debt which the agent owed to the insurance companies, which he refused to pay. The agent asserted common law and statutory counterclaims of wrongful termination and withholding of wages and tortious interference with business relations in connection with respect to the agent’s termination. The agent sought over $9 million in damages. The three member NASD Panel denied all of the agents’ counterclaims and granted judgment, in part, to the Firm’s clients on their breach of contract claims.
  • The Firm defended a national retailer in a discrimination action brought by a former employee. The Firm successfully convinced the State of Illinois Department of Human Rights and Human Rights Commission to dismiss the former employee’s claims of age, race and sex discrimination for lack of substantial evidence.
  • The Firm convinced the MCAD to issue a Lack of Probable Cause Finding in favor of the Firm’s client on a retaliation claim asserted by its former employee. The former employee appealed the decision and an MCAD Commissioner affirmed the Lack of Probable Cause finding dismissing the claim.
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the Firm represented a construction company and three of its managers in a wrongful termination action brought by a former manager. On behalf of the individual defendants, the Firm obtained a dismissal of all Title VII discrimination claims. On behalf of the company, the Firm obtained dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim; the intentional interference with contractual relations claim and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claim. Thereafter, the Firm pressed in discovery for medical and psychiatric records of the plaintiff and the Court compelled the plaintiff to produce the records. When the plaintiff failed to produce the required records, the Firm convinced the Court to dismiss the action and enter judgment for Defendants, which included an award of attorneys’ fees to the Firm’s client to be paid by the plaintiff relating to the client’s expenditures in compelling the records.