Free Consultation: (954) 424-1933

        
Welcome to Glasser & Kleppin, Attorneys at Law

In South Florida, we are inundated with an outrageous and disturbing number of overtime, discrimination, and Title III premises liability lawsuits every year, of which a significant percentage have no merit, and are being filed in an attempt to force businesses to settle to avoid the cost of litigation.  At Glasser & Kleppin, we vigorously defend these types of cases.

Glasser & Kleppin, offers employers and businesses an alternative to large law firms. We have a highly experienced and successful team of attorneys dedicated to defending small and large companies who are being sued by current or former employees or by individuals claiming to be disabled from patronizing businesses. We focus on employment law cases relating to overtime, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful discharge and premises liability law (particularly Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act).

Unique among our peers, we offer a team approach in litigating these matters. Your case is too important to have only one attorney's input in successfully defending your case. Rather, you will benefit from the skills and knowledge of our experienced litigation team, all of whom will have your best interests at heart.

Client service is the principal goal of our firm. Over the long term, Glasser & Kleppin has offered a quality of service which has contributed to our growth and success. We believe the way we have applied our values in firm management has been an important factor in satisfying our clients' needs. Simply put, as important as it is to know the law, we also get to know you. We are AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest peer review rating. The firm is now entertaining select discrimination cases employees may have.

Overtime Defense Florida, Overtime Defense Attorney Florida

To learn more about how Glasser & Kleppin can help you, we invite you to explore our website or call our office for a free consultation.

*Our commitment to exceeding client expectations with high quality solutions remains the "hallmark" of our combined legal practice.

Recent News

Domingo v. AMTEC, L.L.C., Case No. 12-21690-CIV-KMW (S.D. Fla. 2012)

This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case which the court dismissed because the plaintiff's attorney was forced to admit after engaging in discovery that the case was frivolous. The order of dismissal was issued on October 15, 2013, and is [D.E. 110] in the case.

Arilus v. Joseph A. DiEmmanuele, Inc., et al., 522 Fed. Appx. 881 (11th Cir. 2013)

On July 8, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the firm's defense client, which was granted by the trial court, because the plaintiffs could not prove that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to the corporate defendants, because they did not have the requisite $500,000 in gross annual sales volume. Arilus v. Joseph A. DiEmmanuele, 895 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (S.D Fla. 2012). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in this opinion.

Rakip v. Paradise Awnings Corp., et al., 514 Fed. Appx. 917 (11th Cir. 2013)

On March 27, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided an appeal and a cross-appeal in favor of the firm's defense client. This case was a Fair Labor Standards Act case, and the firm brought a counterclaim against Plaintiff Rakip under Florida's civil theft statute, Florida Statutes § 772.11, which the court converted into a breach of contract claim during the trial. Shortly before trial, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to Plaintiff Rakip's overtime claim on the ground that he released it. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on the FLSA claim, finding that Plaintiff Jeronimo was an exempt manager not entitled to overtime and that in any event no overtime was worked. The jury also rendered a verdict on the counterclaim in favor of the defendants for $1,360.00 against Plaintiff Rakip. After trial, the court denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motions, except it took away the jury's award of $1,360.00 against plaintiff away and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants as to Plaintiff Rakip's overtime claims and the defendants cross-appealed the court's granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Plaintiff Rakip as to the counterclaim. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to Plaintiff Rakip's overtime claim, but reversed the trial court's grant of judgment as a matter of law as to the breach of contract claim and reinstated the jury verdict of $1,360.00 on the counterclaim.

Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., et al., 711 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013)

On March 6, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that the firm prevailed as to 7 of the 9 plaintiffs in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, and affirmed the judgment in favor of 2 of the plaintiffs against the firm's employer client for a fraction of the money that they sought.

GK Announces New Social Media Campaign!

Plantation, Florida, January 2, 2013 -- The law firm of Glasser & Kleppin has officially launched its social media campaign and is inviting you to join in on the action! In its ongoing mission to provide exceptional service, maintain communication with past and present clients, and commence new relationships, GK is making it a point to connect with you via the following social media channels:

As Glasser & Kleppin continues to grow, the firm finds it very important to utilize its various social media profiles in order to keep you updated with the firm's latest news and events, and to provide you with relevant information about the labor and employment law industry.  GK encourages you to visit its profiles, add the firm to your network, and share a positive comment or recommendation. GK also encourages you to use its presence on these websites as a medium for contacting the firm. GK is dedicated to continually finding ways to serve you better, and looks forward to connecting with you through these social media channels.

GK obtains favorable Dismissal with Prejudice for client, A to Z Real Estate Management, Inc.

Plantation, Florida, December 17, 2012 -- The law firm of Glasser & Kleppin was recently able to obtain a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for its client, A to Z Real Estate Management, in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 12-60792-CIV-SCOLA). The Plaintiff in the case filed a Complaint on April 30, 2012, setting forth one (1) substantive count pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for alleged unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff sought back wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees, and litigation expenses.

However, the Plaintiff ultimately agreed to dismiss his lawsuit upon the exchange of discovery and after defense counsel took his deposition. Specifically, the Plaintiff conceded that A to Z Real Estate Management, Inc was not a covered employer under the FLSA and that he was a manager exempt from recovering damages under the FLSA. Thus, the Plaintiff failed to receive any money for his claims. In this case, the stipulation of dismissal served to conclude the lawsuit. The term "with prejudice" indicates that the lawsuit cannot be re-filed, as opposed to "without prejudice" which allows the re-filing of the action. In this case, the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss his claims with prejudice.

Joseph v. Nichell's Caribbean Cuisine, Inc., 2012 WL 5306360 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

This case was brought by the plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, under the theory that the defendant-employer owed the plaintiff unpaid overtime and also terminated the plaintiff in retaliation for exercising her rights under the FLSA. The defendant was a small Jamaican restaurant represented by the firm. On October 26, 2012, the firm convinced the trial court to grant summary judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the firm's defense client. The court had earlier dismissed the overtime claim, see Joseph v. Nichell's Caribbean Cuisine, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2012), and in this order granted summary judgment as to the retaliation claim, which was the plaintiff's only claim remaining.

Barrera v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

On October 19, 2012, the court taxed costs against the 14 plaintiffs and in favor of the firm's employer client for a little more than $32,000.00. This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case that went to trial for approximately 2 weeks, and resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the firm's clients on May 10, 2011. The defendant is believed to be the world's largest roofing company. In another cited decision, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for new trial, alternatively, motion for judgment as a matter of law. Barrera v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., 2012 WL 1933319 (S.D. Fla. 2012). The plaintiffs did not appeal.

Palma v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

On September 29, 2012, the court taxed costs against the plaintiffs and in favor of the firm's employer client for just shy of $10,000.00. The firm had received a favorable jury verdict after a several-day trial conducted by Chris Kleppin of the firm. The case was brought by numerous plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Obando v. M & E Investments, Inc., 2012 WL 1933552 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

The court taxed costs against the plaintiff for just under $9,000.00, after the firm prevailed against the plaintiff after a jury trial, in which the jury found that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not apply to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not work any overtime in any event for the defendant, which owns and operates a hotel on Miami Beach, Florida.

Garrido v. CSA Group Professional Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 4489479 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case which the court dismissed because the plaintiff's attorney was forced to admit after engaging in discovery that the case was frivolous. The order of dismissal was issued on September 21, 2012.

Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 863 F. Supp.2d 1168 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

After the court granted summary judgment for the defendants in this Fair Labor Standards Act case on the ground that the FLSA did not apply to the corporate defendant because it did not have the requisite gross annual sales volume ($500,000), see Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 2011 WL 918634 (S.D. Fla. 2011), and it was clear that no pre-suit investigation was conducted by plaintiffs' counsel, the firm filed a motion for attorney fees and sanctions against plaintiff's counsel, and the motion was granted in part, awarding the small business defendant $8,340.00 in attorney fees for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit. The court entered a separate order taxing costs in the favor of the defense client in the amount of $1,251.61. Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

Ceant v. Aventura Limousine & Transp. Serv., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

On June 27, 2012, in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, firm successfully represented its client, as it convinced the court to grant in part the defendant-employer's (represented by the firm) motion to dismiss the case. The client is one of the world's most reknowned limousine companies. The court previously struck the statement of claim that the plaintiff had filed as being completely deficient in regard to calculating the plaintiff's alleged damages. Ceant v. Tinkler, 2012 WL 1933557 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2012).

Gomez v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 1933337 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case. On April 3, 2012, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant (the firm's client) on the ground that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant-employer had any knowledge that overtime hours were being worked by the plaintiff.

Orellana v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., 2011 WL 6030108 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, in November 2011, the firm represented the defendant-employer from the plaintiff's claims that he was entitled to overtime and that he worked it without being properly paid for it. Concerning some of the plaintiff's co-workers, a jury had previously found that the workers were properly paid their overtime after a 2-week jury trial. Barrera v. Tecta America South Florida, Inc., f/k/a Weiss & Woolrich Southern Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 09-21841-CIV-DLG (S.D. Fla.). After 208 docket entries, the plaintiff, who was an illegal alien, was apparently deported as he could not appear for trial. Accordingly, the defendants moved for involuntary dismissal, and that motion was granted.

Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., et al., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011)

This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The firm represented the defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff could not prove that the corporate defendant was an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of the FLSA or that the plaintiff could prove that he could establish individual coverage. The trial court further held that 29 C.F.R. § 776.23, which states that any construction worker working at a hospital is entitled to bring a FLSA claim, was arbitrary and capricious. The corporate defendant had less than $500,000 in gross annual sales volume, and thus was not subject to the Act. The plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that the corporate defendant had certain expenses that suggested that the gross sales volume exceeded $500,000.

Further, the firm argued that the trial court should grant summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff was an illegal alien. The court did not address that issue.

On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court's order should be affirmed on the grounds provided for by the trial court, and, if not, that affirmance was required because the plaintiff was an illegal alien. The Eleventh Circuit held oral argument on January 18, 2010, and in late May, 2010, requested that the Solicitor General of the United States (Elena Kagan) give the Obama Administration's position concerning whether an illegal alien could recover under the FLSA. The federal government thereafter submitted a brief on the issue. The Eleventh Circuit ultimately did not determine that issue, but on November 17, 2011, issued this opinion, which is a watershed opinion concerning the legal standards that a plaintiff must show to prove both enterprise coverage and individual coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the opinion upheld the finding that 29 C.F.R. § 776.23 is arbitrary and capricious.

Brown v. Jenne, 2011 WL 5375045 (Fla. 4th DCA, Nov. 9, 2011)

The firm represented one of approximately ten (10) Defendants (Lt. Kenneth Swan) in a civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for wrongful death. The basic facts of the case were that the decedent neglected to take his anti-seizure medication, had a seizure while driving, and crashed, which resulted in a roll-over of the SUV. The police and fire rescue arrived at the scene to assist the decedent, and have became violent, and refused all attempts to communicate his medical condition. The decedent was restrained, not for any law enforcement purpose, but to render medical aid. The decedent was placed in an ambulance for transport to an area hospital. Shortly after the decedent arrived at the hospital, he passed. The decedent sued all of the police and fire rescue personnel who were at the scene. Lt. Swan, our client, was the highest ranking officer at the scene of the accident, but he did not ride in the ambulance with the decedent to the hospital, as other Defendants did that.

Judge Bowman of the Circuit Court of Broward County granted Lt. Swan's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Brown v. Jenne, 2009 WL 3253820 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2009). The Plaintiffs appealed, but the Plaintiffs lost that appeal, because the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Brown v. Jenne, 2011 WL 5375045 (Fla. 4th DCA, Nov. 9, 2011). The court held that there was no Fourth Amendment search or seizure, because the decedent was not restrained for a law enforcement purpose, but rather was restrained for fire rescue personnel to administer first aid. The opinion was reheard, and the the Fourth District Court of Appeal did issue a new opinion, though it completely left intact the full grant of summary judgment in favor of Lt. Swan. Brown v. Jenne, 122 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Palma, et al., v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-22913-CIV-SIMONTON (S.D. Fla.)

In this case, on November 4, 2011, after a 7-day jury trial in federal court, the firm received a jury verdict in its defense clients' favor as to all four (4) plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act claims (for alleged $200,000 in overtime that was not paid and thousands of dollars in alleged minimum wages that were not paid). The jury found that there were no overtime or minimum wage violations and that the corporate Defendant was not an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) of the FLSA, and thus even if the Plaintiffs had proven wage and hour violations the Defendants would have prevailed. Previously, three Plaintiffs were involuntarily dismissed from the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Defendants prevailed and received a final judgment in their favor against the Plaintiffs.

Obando v. M & E Investment Properties, Inc., Case No. 11-20318-CIV-MOORE (S.D. Fla.)

In this case, on November 2, 2011, the firm received a verdict in its defense client's favor after a 3-day jury trial in federal court in a case alleging failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The two main issues that were tried were (1) whether the Plaintiff could prove that she was individually engaged in interstate commerce while she worked for the Defendant (i.e., that she regularly and recurrently participated in the actual movement of persons or things across state lines); and (2) whether Plaintiff worked overtime in any workweek. The court ruled at the summary judgment stage that the corporate Defendant was as a matter of law not an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) of the FLSA. The jury found in favor of the Defendant as to both issues that were tried, and consequently a final judgment was issued in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.

Campbell v. Moon Palace, Inc., -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2011 WL 4389894 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2011)

In this case, the Defendant is a Chinese restaurant that has been in business for approximately twenty-five (25) years and had never been sued before. The Plaintiff had brought many lawsuits under Title III of the ADA, and thus appeared to be a serial plaintiff. During his deposition, it was established that with respect to many of the suits the Plaintiff brought he could not say that he patronized the businesses, but also he readily admitted that he had never even heard of many of the businesses. In particular, with respect to the Defendant, the Plaintiff admitted that he had only been to the restaurant on one previous occasion, that he liked other restaurnats better and in particular other Chinese restaurants, and that he seldom travels near the Defendant, and thus could not say that he was going to patronize the restaurant in the future. Consequently, the firm moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that the Plaintiff cannot prove that he has standing to sue, because he cannot say that he will patronize the restaurant in the future. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit. Accordingly, final judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant against the Plaintiff. Unfortunately, many of these Title III suits, like this one, are being brought by individuals and lawyers even though they are aware that the Plaintiff has not been a regular patron of the business, and does not intend to be a patron in the future.

Peter Franceshina, Scott Rothstein's Ex-Law Partner Goes from Las Olas Firm to Disability Lawsuits, 1A (Sun-Sentinel, Aug. 5, 2011)

In this newspaper article, concerning the infamous Scott Rothstein's ex-law partner who has recently started filing cases for plaintiff Charles Bado, partner Chris Kleppin was mentioned concerning his defense of various lawsuits brought against local businesses under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Kleppin defended three cases brought by Charles Bado. The article notes that Mr. Kleppin was able to get the three cases dismissed (Bado v. Alster Trading, L.L.C., d/b/a The Old Heidelberg Deli, Case No. 10-61774-PCH (S.D. Fla.); Bado v. German Specialty, Inc., d/b/a The Old Heidelberg, Case No. 10-61775-PCH (S.D. Fla.); and Bado v. The Hut Lounge, Inc., Case No. 10-62285-JEM (S.D. Fla.)), and had written in court documents that "It is clear that plaintiff's [Charles Bado's] lawsuits are a scheme or artifice to use the court system to defraud and extort businesses" and that Mr. Bado "wants to sue as many [local businesses] as he can, as fast as he can."

Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., Case No. 10-23223-CIV-GRAHAM (S.D. Fla.)

The firm represented the Defendant who is a local floor finisher. The plaintiffs were laborers who worked at the company. The Plaintiffs filed a claim alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., seeking back wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiffs would not be able to meet the burden of proof that Defendant was subject to the FLSA under either the enterprise or individual coverage analyses. The firm filed on behalf of the Defendants a motion for attorneys' fees and costs against Plaintiffs' counsel, as they believe that the case was completely frivolous, and that Motion was recently granted in part, assessing sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $7,480.00.

Barrera, et al., v. Weiss & Woolrich Southern Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 09-21841-CIV-GRAHAM (S.D. Fla.)

In this case, on May 10, 2011, after a 10-day jury trial in federal court, the firm received a jury verdict in its defense clients' favor as to fourteen (14) plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act claims (for alleged overtime that was not paid and missing hours). The jury found that there were no overtime or minimum wage violations and that the firm's clients did not employ the Plaintiffs pre-August 27, 2007.

Suchite v. Tecta America, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

The firm represented the Defendants (the largest roofing company in the United States, one of its owners, and the firm) from a lawsuit in which the Plaintiffs were alleging that they suffered retaliation under the anti-retaliation provision contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). The plaintiffs had all previously filed FLSA overtime lawsuits against the corporate defendant and its owner. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that defendants retaliated against them for filing a FLSA overtime lawsuit by the following acts: The Defendants informed the court that plaintiffs were illegal aliens (one had entered the country illegally twice and one was being actively sought by the federal government for failure to appear at an immigration proceeding) who had committed income tax evasion, had used false social security documents to obtain employment, and were scheduled to enter a federal courthouse and asked the plaintiffs questions in their depositions concerning their immigration status and tax fraud in an attempt to obtain Rule 608(b) evidence (evidence of misconduct which does not result in conviction), and told the court that plaintiffs' counsel was actively harboring, concealing, and transporting them in violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all of which was true. The defendants had a good faith basis for their actions, namely, to obtain Rule 608(b) evidence, because they were concerned about committing misprision of a felony, and because they had a concern of courthouse security since the plaintiffs were felons and threatening individuals). The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and threw the case out of court, because the plaintiffs could not 1) rebut the proffered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons offered by the defendants and 2) the plaintiffs could not otherwise show that the defendants' real motivation for their actions was to intentionally retaliate. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. See Suchite v. Tecta America, 2012 WL 1933344 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

Portales v. Another Beautiful Corporation, 2011 WL 1043663 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2011)

The firm represented Defendant Another Beautiful Corporation in a case alleging pregnancy discrimination and whistleblower retaliation (for allegedly being fired after complaining about the employer wrongly recording telephone calls between sales associates and potential customers, pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, Florida Statutes § 760.01 et seq., and Florida's Whistleblower Act, Florida Statutes § 448.101 et seq. The Defendant runs a successful modeling school and agency. The Plaintiff sued for compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, front pay, attorney fees, and costs.

The firm defended the charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC, and obtained a "no-cause" determination (that is, a legal ruling from the administrative agency that there was no discrimination that occurred) from the agency investigating the plaintiff's allegations. This served to bar the plaintiff from litigating her pregnancy discrimination claim in court. Discovery revealed that while represented by counsel, the plaintiff told the EEOC that the sole reason for her termination was the fact that she was pregnant, and that she never even filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations which is a prerequisite to bringing a claim under FCRA.

Discovery also revealed that there was nothing unlawful about the recording of the telephone calls (they contained the admonition that "this telephone call may be recorded..."), and the plaintiff did not even complain about any telephone calls being recorded until February, 2009, but she learned that she was going to be replaced in November, 2008.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant for all of the reasons listed and others. The defendant is deciding whether to seek attorney fees from plaintiff's counsel for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit. On May 12, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed (meaning it upheld) the grant of summary judgment, and thus the firm was successful for its client on appeal. See Portales v. American Beautiful Corp., 121 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2012).

Gomez v. Vicky Bakery VIII, Inc., 2011 WL 1346887 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

The firm represented the Defendant which operates a local bakery. The Plaintiff was a cake decorator who worked at the company. The Plaintiff filed a claim alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., seeking back wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiff would not be able to meet the burden of proof that Defendant was subject to the FLSA under either the enterprise or individual coverage analyses, which the Plaintiff eventually conceded.

Rodriguez v. Marble Care Int'l, Inc., 2011 WL 918634 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

The firm represented the Defendant who is a local floor finisher. The plaintiffs were laborers who worked at the company. The Plaintiffs filed a claim alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., seeking back wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiffs would not be able to meet the burden of proof that Defendant was subject to the FLSA under either the enterprise or individual coverage analyses. The Defendants are filing a motion for attorney fees and costs against Plaintiffs' counsel, as they believe that the case was completely frivolous.

Rakip v. Paradise Awnings Corp., Case No. 10-20004-CIV-COOKE (S.D. Fla.)

In this case, on December 3, 2010, after a 10-day jury trial in federal court, the firm received a jury verdict in its defense clients' favor in an FLSA case and also successfully prosecuted a counterclaim against one of the plaintiffs for $1,360.00 for breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment as to Plaintiff Rakip's wage and hour claims during an evidentiary hearing that occurred the first day of trial, and as to Plaintiff Jeronimo, the jury found that he was a manager and therefore exempt, meaning that he was not entitled to any overtime, and it also found that Jeronimo was not owed any overtime.

Lira v. Matthew's Marine Air Conditioner, Inc., Case No. 09-61178-CIV-ZLOCH (S.D. Fla.)

In this case, on October 27, 2010, after a 3-day jury trial in federal court, the firm received a jury verdict in its defense clients' favor in a FLSA (alleged overtime violations) case. The jury found that the FLSA did not apply to the small local business, which is a repairer and installer of air conditioning systems on yachts.

Maria Gomez v. Vicky Bakery, VIII, MDCCHR No. 11 1026 010; EEOC Charge No. 15C 2011 00018

The charging party filed her Charge of Discrimination on October 26, 2010. The investigating agency was Miami-Dade County Office of Human Rights and Fair Employment Practices. The charge indicated (in the "Cause of Discrimination Based on" section) that the employment discrimination at issue in this matter involved sex and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes § 760.01 et seq., and Miami-Dade County's Ordinance. The charge included only legal conclusions, and conspicuously absent from the charge were any factual allegations that support those legal conclusions. The legal conclusions stated in the charge were as follows: 1) a hostile work environment harassment claim based on sex; 2) a disparate treatment claim for her termination, based on and sex, and 3) that she was subject to retaliation because of her alleged complaints of discrimination. The Charge of Discrimination was woefully deficient concerning any allegations of sexual harassment, because such harassment has to be repeated, prolonged, and not rectified upon complaint, and the couple instances that she mentions (even if they occurred, and they did not), are not sufficient to rise to the level of sexual harassment.

Concerning the alleged violations of Title VII and FCRA, the Office issued a "no-cause" finding in light of the fact that the employer did not employ the requisite fifteen (15) employees in order to be subject to those statutes.

Martinez-Pinillos v. Air Flow Filters, Inc., Case No. 09-22453-CIV-MARTINEZ (S.D. Fla.)

In this case, on September 9, 2010, the firm received a jury verdict in its defense clients' favor following a 4-day federal court jury trial. It was a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act allegedly for failure to pay overtime and for breach of contract. The jury found that the Plaintiff never even worked for the Defendants, and that there was no contract entered into.

 
PRACTICE AREAS
Wage & Hour (Overtime Defense)
Title III Disability Defense
Discrimination Defense
Civil Rights Defense
EEOC/Administrative Defense
Whistle Blower Defense
Worker's Compensation Retaliation Defense
Unemployment Hearings and Appeals
Labor Law
Insurance Co. Panel Counsel
Appellate (Appeals)
Arbitration