Services
    Practice Groups
  • Antitrust Counseling & Litigation
  • Bankruptcy, Insolvency & Creditors’ Rights
  • Capital Markets & Securities
  • Commercial Transactions
  • Corporate & Transactional
  • Corporate Compliance & Governance
  • Data Security & Privacy
  • Employee Benefits
  • Environmental
  • Executive Compensation
  • Finance
  • Franchising
  • Immigration
  • Insurance Recovery
  • Intellectual Property
  • International
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation, Trials & Appeals
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Personal Injury & Products Liability
  • Public Finance
  • Public Law
  • Real Estate
  • Safety & Health – OSHA/MSHA
  • Tax
    Industries
  • Aviation
  • Banking & Financial Services
  • Cable Television, Internet & Media
  • Commercial & Resort Real Estate
  • Construction
  • Food & Beverage
  • Golf, Resorts & Private Clubs
  • Government Contracts
  • Healthcare
  • Media & Publishing
  • Nonprofit & Tax-Exempt Organizations
  • Oil & Gas, Energy & Natural Resources
  • Religious Organizations
  • Space Law
  • Sports Law
  • Telecommunications
    Private Client
  • Criminal Defense/White Collar Defense
  • Estate & Tax Planning
  • Family Law
  • Farm & Ranch
  • Privately Held Businesses
  • Residential Purchases, Sales & Construction
  • Services
  • Professionals
  • News & Events
    • Current News and Events
    • Events and Registration
    • In The Media
    • Publications & Advisories
    • Speaking Engagements
  • About the Firm
    • About the Firm Page
    • History
    • Inclusiveness
  • Blog
  • Careers
    • Careers at Sherman & Howard
    • Lawyers
    • Business Professionals
    • Law Students
  • Affiliations
    • Interlaw
  • Offices
  • Contact
  • Menu

  • Services
  • Professionals
  • News & Events
    • Current News and Events
    • Events and Registration
    • In The Media
    • Publications & Advisories
    • Speaking Engagements
  • About the Firm
    • About the Firm Page
    • History
    • Inclusiveness
  • Blog
  • Careers
    • Careers at Sherman & Howard
    • Lawyers
    • Business Professionals
    • Law Students
  • Affiliations
    • Interlaw
  • Offices
  • Contact
  • Search Professionals
    • Name
    • Service
        Practice Groups
      • Antitrust Counseling & Litigation
      • Bankruptcy, Insolvency & Creditors’ Rights
      • Capital Markets & Securities
      • Commercial Transactions
      • Corporate & Transactional
      • Corporate Compliance & Governance
      • Data Security & Privacy
      • Employee Benefits
      • Environmental
      • Executive Compensation
      • Finance
      • Franchising
      • Immigration
      • Insurance Recovery
      • Intellectual Property
      • International
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation, Trials & Appeals
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Personal Injury & Products Liability
      • Public Finance
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Safety & Health – OSHA/MSHA
      • Tax
        Industries
      • Aviation
      • Banking & Financial Services
      • Cable Television, Internet & Media
      • Commercial & Resort Real Estate
      • Construction
      • Food & Beverage
      • Golf, Resorts & Private Clubs
      • Government Contracts
      • Healthcare
      • Media & Publishing
      • Nonprofit & Tax-Exempt Organizations
      • Oil & Gas, Energy & Natural Resources
      • Religious Organizations
      • Space Law
      • Sports Law
      • Telecommunications
        Private Client
      • Criminal Defense/White Collar Defense
      • Estate & Tax Planning
      • Family Law
      • Farm & Ranch
      • Privately Held Businesses
      • Residential Purchases, Sales & Construction
    • Office
      • Albuquerque
      • Aspen
      • Colorado Springs
      • Denver
      • Las Vegas
      • Phoenix
      • Reno
      • Scottsdale
      • St. Louis
      • Steamboat Springs
    • Title
      • Associate
      • Member
      • Paralegal
  • Professionals

Category Archives: Class Action

SCOTUS Restricts Class Arbitrations

By John Alan Doran In yet another pro-arbitration, employer-friendly decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that an individual cannot pursue claims in arbitration on behalf of a class unless the arbitration clause involved clearly and unequivocally permits class…
Read More

2019-04-24T11:30:51-06:00

Posted on April 24, 2019

By John Alan Doran

In yet another pro-arbitration, employer-friendly decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that an individual cannot pursue claims in arbitration on behalf of a class unless the arbitration clause involved clearly and unequivocally permits class treatment of claims. Lamps Plus v. Varela, 17-988 (April 24, 2019).

Varela worked for Lamps Plus when a hacker successfully obtained tax information from Lamps Plus for some 1,300 employees, including Varela.  Varela filed a class action in federal court.  Lamps Plus moved to compel arbitration under Varela’s employment agreement, which included mandatory arbitration.  The District Court compelled arbitration, but did so on a class basis, forcing Lamps Plus to defend Varela’s entire class action in an arbitral forum, rather than simply defending Varela’s own personal claim.  The Ninth Circuit predictably upheld the District Court’s ruling, concluding that because Varela’s arbitration agreement was ambiguous with respect to class arbitration, the agreement must be construed against Lamps Plus and class arbitration must be inferred. 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions below.  The Court criticized the Ninth Circuit for applying California contract law doctrines that undermine the powerful presumption that parties are bound to arbitrate only in the manner to which they specifically agreed.  The Court noted the significant problems posed by class-wide arbitration, most of which undermine the very purposes of arbitration in the first place.  Against this background, the Court held that parties to an arbitration agreement can only be forced into arbitration of class claims when the arbitration agreement unambiguously provides for class arbitration.  Neither silence nor ambiguity on the subject will suffice to infer the parties’ agreement to class arbitration. 

At a time when Congress, many states (especially California, over, and over, and over…), the media, and some large employers are questioning the future viability of mandatory arbitration outside the collective bargaining setting, our Supreme Court continues to emphasize the values of, and strong federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.  Lamps Plus stands for the proposition that a court cannot infer consent to class arbitration when an arbitration agreement is silent or ambiguous on the topic.  That being said, employers can avoid the question altogether by simply prohibiting class claims in their arbitration agreements. 

Posted in Arbitration, Class Action, Supreme Court | Tagged Arbitration Agreements, Class Claims

SCOTUS Upholds Class-Action Waivers

By Bryan Stillwagon May employees and employers agree that any disputes between them will be resolved only through one-on-one arbitration? Today, the Supreme Court responded, “YES.” In a 5-4 decision, the Court held in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst…
Read More

2018-05-21T09:49:04-06:00

Posted on May 21, 2018

By Bryan Stillwagon

May employees and employers agree that any disputes between them will be resolved only through one-on-one arbitration? Today, the Supreme Court responded, “YES.”

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., that employers may reach enforceable agreements with their employees that the employees will not bring class or collective actions. In recent years, employees have argued that the forced waiver of class- and collective-action procedures violated the Arbitration Act’s savings clause and the NLRA’s right to engage in collective action. Rejecting those arguments, the Court leaves intact a beneficial tool for employers in avoiding costly multi-plaintiff actions.

Read our full advisory here.

Posted in Arbitration, Class Action, Supreme Court

SCOTUS To Decide Class Action Waivers

By Bill Wright The Supreme Court has agreed to resolve the simmering dispute between the NLRB and (essentially all) employers over class action waivers. The NLRB has maintained in a number of cases that employers may not enforce arbitration agreements…
Read More

2017-01-13T15:52:59-07:00

Posted on January 13, 2017

By Bill Wright

The Supreme Court has agreed to resolve the simmering dispute between the NLRB and (essentially all) employers over class action waivers. The NLRB has maintained in a number of cases that employers may not enforce arbitration agreements with employees that (1) require employees to arbitrate all disputes and (2) prohibit the employees from bringing collective or class actions in the arbitration. Although two circuit courts have agreed with the Board, most courts have disagreed, relying on the Federal Arbitration Act.

Now the Supreme Court will decide the matter. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011317zr_q8l1.pdf   The Court granted review in three cases: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB; Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.  The parties in the three cases phrase the legal issue differently, but the gist of it is best stated in Epic Systems:

Whether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class and collective proceedings, is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.

Stay tuned for oral argument and the Court’s eventual pronouncement of the Law of the Land.

 

Posted in Class Action, Human Resources/Employee Relations | Tagged Class Action Waivers

Ninth Circuit Strikes Class Arb Waivers

By John Alan Doran The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in, today, on the propriety of class action arbitration waivers under the NLRA.  The Court held that such waivers violate Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA in the…
Read More

2016-08-22T16:23:15-06:00

Posted on August 22, 2016

By John Alan Doran

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in, today, on the propriety of class action arbitration waivers under the NLRA.  The Court held that such waivers violate Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA in the context of a pending FLSA lawsuit.

Ernst & Young requires new employees to sign an agreement that requires employees to pursue any claims against the employer through arbitration, and such arbitrations must be pursued on an individual basis.  The effect of the agreement is to prevent employees from bringing class or collective actions against the employer in court or in arbitration.  But, the employees involved in this case brought a FLSA collective action lawsuit anyway.  The employer moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that all of the potential class members had to arbitrate their respective claims separately as individuals.  The trial court agreed, dismissed the case, and ordered individual arbitrations.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, however, finding that the arbitration provision violates Section 7 of the NLRA, which grants employees a statutory right to engage in “concerted” activities.  The Court poo-pooed the import and impact of the Federal Arbitration Act, the stated purpose of which is to promote and enforce arbitration agreements.  This is no surprise, as the Ninth Circuit has quite notoriously fought arbitration at every avenue when it comes to employment litigation.  The dissenting judge in this case quite rightly describes the Court’s decision as “breathtaking in its scope and in its error”.  Given the profound split on this issue between federal appellate courts, the continued vitality of this decision rests with SCOTUS, yet another point of significant interest in this election cycle.

Posted in Arbitration, Class Action | Tagged Class Action Arbitration, Ninth Circuit

2 Key SCOTUS Spokeo Takeaways

By John Alan Doran The Supreme Court held this morning that a party suing for a purely technical violation of a statute (in this case, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)) must demonstrate that he/she has suffered or is likely…
Read More

2016-05-16T11:06:15-06:00

Posted on May 16, 2016

By John Alan Doran

The Supreme Court held this morning that a party suing for a purely technical violation of a statute (in this case, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)) must demonstrate that he/she has suffered or is likely to suffer a concrete harm from the statutory violation. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. Robins sued Spokeo under the FCRA when he learned that searches for him in the Spokeo search engine by third parties turned up false information about him.  Robins’ lawsuit claimed that Spokeo violated the FCRA, and he was therefore entitled to an automatic statutory penalty provided in the FCRA. But it was not clear from the lawsuit whether Robins suffered or was likely to suffer any real harm from Spokeo’s technical violations of the FCRA. So, the Court sent the case back to reassess whether Robins actually complained of a concrete harm or a concrete threat of harm.

And you care because…..?  First, in a footnote, the Court reemphasized that, in all class actions, the plaintiffs who bring the actual lawsuit must themselves demonstrate that they have suffered or will suffer some concrete harm. This is important because oft-times in employment class actions, the plaintiff simply claims that he/she is a member of a large class, and that the class has suffered some generalized harm from the employer’s actions. That will not be enough under Spokeo.   Second, the Court’s extraordinary emphasis on the need for concrete harm may provide places of public accommodation with a new weapon in the defense of Americans With Disabilities Act Title III cases. One could read this opinion as the possible death-knell for the legions of cases where the plaintiff alleges that he/she wanted to visit a property, but was “deterred” by the alleged ADA violations on the property. And, better still, this may require the Ninth Circuit to revisit its mind-bogglingly broad ADA public accommodations decision in Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (no relation to yours truly).

Posted in Accommodation, ADA, Class Action | Tagged ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, SCOTUS

Class Averaging

By Bryan Stillwagon The Supreme Court ruled today that Plaintiffs’ use of average donning and doffing times was proper and sufficient to affirm a $5.8 million judgment against Tyson Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 (Mar. 22, 2016). Plaintiffs (employees…
Read More

2016-03-22T11:52:40-06:00

Posted on March 22, 2016

By Bryan Stillwagon

The Supreme Court ruled today that Plaintiffs’ use of average donning and doffing times was proper and sufficient to affirm a $5.8 million judgment against Tyson Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 (Mar. 22, 2016). Plaintiffs (employees in a pork processing plant in Iowa) relied at trial on an industrial relations expert’s calculations of the average time it took for employees to don and doff required protective gear. Tyson argued basing individual damages on the expert’s average failed to consider differences in the composition of the gear that may have altered the time each spent donning and doffing.

The Court disagreed. The employer’s failure to keep adequate time records created an “evidentiary gap” and the Plaintiffs had to fill that gap through the expert’s study. Tyson could have argued the representative evidence was statistically inadequate or based on implausible assumptions (under Daubert) but it did not challenge the methodology. The Court distinguished Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), where the Court ruled the individual class members could not rely on the experiences of other workers in different stores to establish discrimination against the class members generally. Here, Plaintiffs worked in the same Tyson facility, did similar work, and were paid under the same policy. Thus, the Court found, each class member could have introduced the expert’s study in his/her individual suit. For those reasons, the Court held that the representative evidence was a permissible means of showing individual hours worked.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys will now undoubtedly argue that the Court is signaling some backtracking from Dukes. The workers are similarly situated, for class or collective action purposes, in part because they are subject to the same employer policy. But crucial here is also the fact that there were no relevant individualized records for the Court’s use. “Trial by Formula” might not be dead, but the formula must be proper.

Posted in Class Action, Dukes Case, OHSA/Safety and Health | Tagged Class Action, collective action, donning and doffing, Supreme Court

Not Worth Fighting Over?

By Andy Volin In wage and hour disputes, sometimes an employer would rather just pay a claim instead of fighting it. Maybe the claim is only worth several hundred dollars and attorney’s fees would be a far greater expense. Or…
Read More

2016-01-21T14:07:43-07:00

Posted on January 21, 2016

By Andy Volin

In wage and hour disputes, sometimes an employer would rather just pay a claim instead of fighting it. Maybe the claim is only worth several hundred dollars and attorney’s fees would be a far greater expense. Or maybe not only is the claim small, but the plaintiff claims the dispute should be enlarged into a collective action on behalf of a class of employees, making a mountain out of a molehill. In this situation, some employers have made offers to settle the case at the outset for the full relief the individual plaintiff is seeking, using what is known as a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. Regardless of whether the offer was accepted or not, employers have argued that the fact they made the offer meant there was no longer any controversy, and so the case should be dismissed as moot.

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday explained that this strategy will not work. An unaccepted offer does not make the case moot. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (Jan. 20, 2016). This ruling should not come as a surprise, as it follows reasoning expressed in a 2013 Supreme Court case. Still, the decision gives employers reason to hope, if they tweak the strategy. Instead of merely making an offer under Rule 68, what if the employer pays the total amount claimed by the plaintiff, either directly to an account in the plaintiff’s name, or to the court involved? In this situation, the employer might still argue the case is moot. The Supreme Court majority expressly declined to rule on this strategy, but the dissenting opinions directly stated it would work.

Posted in Class Action, Wage & Hour | Tagged Class Action, Offer of Judgment, Supreme Court, Wage & Hour

“Biggest Idiot” Meets Class Waivers

By John Alan Doran The “biggest idiot theory” (our term, not the NLRB’s) states that, when the NLRB reviews an employer’s policy to see whether the policy would “chill” an employee from exercising NLRA rights, the NLRB does so from…
Read More

2015-12-30T12:24:35-07:00

Posted on December 30, 2015

By John Alan Doran

The “biggest idiot theory” (our term, not the NLRB’s) states that, when the NLRB reviews an employer’s policy to see whether the policy would “chill” an employee from exercising NLRA rights, the NLRB does so from the perspective of the biggest idiot on the planet, not the mythical “reasonable employee.” (See NLRB Meets Gossip Girl) On Christmas Eve, a Grinchy NLRB took two swipes at otherwise lawful class action waivers. In Logisticare Solutions, Inc., the NLRB struck down an employer’s onboarding and handbook provisions requiring employees to waive their right to engage in class or collective actions. The Board found that the provision might be misread to prevent the filing of an unfair labor practice charge because (a) the heading above the waiver referred to “class/collective actions”, but not to “lawsuits”; and, (b) an employee (read “idiot”) might confuse the unmentioned “lawsuits” with unfair labor practice charges. What? Similarly, in 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. the Board struck down an employer’s arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver even though the agreement contained an unambiguous “opt-out” provision inviting employees to opt out of the company’s arbitration mechanism within 30 days of hire. The Board held that the opt-out provision did not save the class action waiver because employees were still forced to waive the right to engage in protected concerted activity. Seriously?

Lesson for today: To avoid the NLRB’s ire: (a) run all of your policies and employment agreements past the biggest idiot you can find; and (b) if the idiot unreasonably misreads a policy or agreement to deter protected concerted activities, go back to the drawing board. But don’t delay—there are very few idiots on the planet that can misread things as well as the NLRB!

Posted in Arbitration, Class Action, NLRB | Tagged Arbitration Agreements, Class Actions, NLRB

SCOTUS Benchslaps Cali…Again

By John Alan Doran This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California Court of Appeals decision invalidating class action arbitration waivers. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, (No. 14-462 December 14, 2015). DIRECTV’s customer service contract contained a mandatory arbitration…
Read More

2015-12-14T10:38:32-07:00

Posted on December 14, 2015

By John Alan Doran

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California Court of Appeals decision invalidating class action arbitration waivers. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, (No. 14-462 December 14, 2015).

DIRECTV’s customer service contract contained a mandatory arbitration clause.  That clause also waived the customer’s right to pursue a class action in arbitration.  The clause also stated that, if the class action waiver was void under the “law of your state”, the entire arbitration agreement was void. Two California plaintiffs sued DIRECTV under their customer service contracts.  They claimed they had no duty to arbitrate because (a) California law invalidated class action arbitration waivers under its “Discover Bank” rule at the time plaintiffs entered these contracts in 2008.  The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California’s Discover Bank rule in its Concepcion decision in 2011. Plaintiffs argued, and the California Court of Appeals ruled, that the Concepcion decision had no bearing on this issue because DIRECTV and the plaintiffs were free to enter into a contract that incorporated even invalid California laws, such as the Discover Bank rule.  What, what, what?!

The Supreme Court made short shrift of this argument.  In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the California court’s interpretation of the arbitration clause violated the  Federal Arbitration Act and its strong policy favoring arbitration.  Although this case involves mass consumer contracts, the Court’s repeated references to federal labor laws should make clear that the opinion applies with equal force to labor and employment cases.  This is good news for employers who rely on mandatory arbitration/class arbitration waivers to limit their litigation exposure.

Posted in Arbitration, Class Action | Tagged Arbitration, California Supreme Court, Federal Arbitration Act, Supreme Court

Court Order Trumps Board

By Bill Wright What happens when the NLRB says an arbitration agreement is illegal, but a court enforces the agreement anyway? Four plaintiffs recently found out. In Hobson et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. CV-10-S-1486-S (N. D. Ala….
Read More

2015-07-13T09:46:35-06:00

Posted on July 13, 2015

By Bill Wright

What happens when the NLRB says an arbitration agreement is illegal, but a court enforces the agreement anyway? Four plaintiffs recently found out. In Hobson et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. CV-10-S-1486-S (N. D. Ala. July 8, 2015), the plaintiffs brought a collective action, for themselves and others, seeking unpaid overtime. The employer raised the arbitration agreement, and the court ordered the plaintiffs to bring their individual claims in arbitration, effectively killing the plaintiffs’ attempt to bring the claims on behalf of other employees.

Instead of arbitrating, one of the plaintiffs filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, and the plaintiffs waited. And waited. Two and a half years they waited without ever starting the arbitration. Eventually, the NLRB ruled that the arbitration agreement illegally prohibited employees from engaging in protected, concerted activities, such as filing collective actions. (See our previous posts concerning DR Horton.) With the Board ruling in hand, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its order on arbitration, but the court found the plaintiffs had failed to comply with its earlier order. The plaintiffs could have asked the court to stay the arbitration pending Board action, or they could have appealed the order, but instead, they just waited for over 2 years. Despite the Board’s ruling, the court called the plaintiffs’ behavior a “clear record of delay and willful misconduct” and dismissed the plaintiffs’ overtime claims as a sanction.

If you’re going to be in court, it is best to follow the court’s orders.

Posted in Arbitration, Class Action, NLRB, Workers' Compensation | Tagged Arbitration Agreements, collective action, D.R. Horton, Horton, NLRB, overtime, protected activity
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • »

Subscribe To Blog

* indicates required

Recent Posts

  • State Law Overtime Calculation Prevails Over Established Federal Method
  • Lethal Danger Needed to Invoke Wrongful Discharge Claim
  • Proposed Replacement for Colorado Minimum Wage Order Promises Big Changes for Employers
  • OFCCP Renews Focus on Disabled Individuals, Veterans, and Military Spouses
  • EEOC Weighs In On NLRB Protections For Offensive Statements

Archives

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012

Categories

  • Accommodation
  • ADA
  • Arbitration
  • Benefits
  • Blog
  • Class Action
  • Contractors
  • Discrimination
  • DOL
  • Dukes Case
  • E-Discovery
  • EEOC
  • ERISA
  • Executive Compensation
  • False Claims Act
  • Federal Contractors
  • First Amendment
  • FLSA
  • FMLA
  • GINA
  • Harassment
  • Harassment
  • Health Care
  • Human Resources/Employee Relations
  • Immigration
  • Internal Investigations
  • Labor
  • Miscellaneous
  • NLRB
  • OHSA/Safety and Health
  • Racial Discrimination
  • Retaliation
  • Social Media
  • Supreme Court
  • Title VII
  • Trade Secrets
  • Uncategorized
  • Union Issues
  • USERRA
  • Wacky Cases
  • Wage & Hour
  • WARN
  • Whistleblower
  • Workers' Compensation
  • Workforce Reduction
  • Services
  • Professionals
  • News & Events
    • Events and Registration
    • In The Media
    • Publications & Advisories
    • Speaking Engagements
  • About the Firm
    • History
    • Interlaw
    • Inclusiveness
  • Blog
  • Careers
    • Lawyers
    • Business Professionals
  • Offices
  • Contact

Copyright 2000-2019 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map +

Email Disclaimer

Sending an email to Sherman & Howard or to one of its lawyers, paralegals, or employees does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Sherman & Howard, and the receipt of the email does not indicate Sherman & Howard’s willingness to discuss forming an attorney-client relationship with you. If you are not already a client of the firm, you should not provide us with confidential information without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide such information before we confirm that we are willing and able to consult with you about becoming a client, we may not be in a position to treat that information as confidential or privileged, and we may be able to represent a party who is adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you.

Please indicate below that you have read the foregoing notice about email communications and that you wish to send an email under the conditions we have set out above.

I have read and agree with the above disclaimer and wish to Email Sherman & Howard.

×

Email Disclaimer

Sending an email to Sherman & Howard or to one of its lawyers, paralegals, or employees does not create an attorney-client between you and Sherman & Howard, and the receipt of the email does not indicate Sherman & Howard’s willingness to discuss forming an attorney-client relationship with you. If you are not already a client of the firm, you should not provide us with confidential information without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide such information before we confirm that we are willing and able to consult with you about becoming a client, we may not be in a position to treat that information as confidential or privileged, and we may be able to represent a party who is adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you.

Please indicate below that you have read the foregoing notice about email communications and that you wish to send an email under the conditions we have set out above.

I have read and agree with the above disclaimer and wish to Email this attorney.

×