Employment Litigation

Clark Hill Labor & Employment attorneys represent employers in employment claims before federal and state lower and appeals courts and administrative agencies, such as the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and federal and state Departments of Labor (DOL). We handle a wide variety of employment-related claims and litigation, including multi-plaintiff and class action matters.

Our litigation expertise includes defending employers in the following areas:

Civil rights, discrimination and other federal and state statutory claims, including claims brought pursuant to Title VII, ADEA, ADA, FMLA, ELCRA, and PDCRA alleging allegations of employment discrimination/harassment because of age, race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, height, weight, marital/familial status, veterans' status, and family and medical leave
Employment torts, including whistleblower, free speech, invasion of privacy, and negligent hiring and supervision
Wrongful discharge and other types of employment-related claims, including class actions, resulting from downsizing or other personnel actions
Federal and state court lawsuits based on public policy, contract, covenant of good faith and fair dealing, infliction of emotional distress, fraud and defamation
Noncompetition, nondisclosure and trade secret claims
Commission disputes
Sarbanes-Oxley claims
OSHA/MIOSHA
Wage claims
ERISA claims

Class Action Litigation
Alternative Dispute Resolution

Class Action Litigation

Clark Hill litigation attorneys have the experience and resources to respond to any class action claims, and have done so for numerous clients in multiple industries. They boast in impressive record of success in representing companies in class action litigation suits ranging from employment disputes to unfair competition in both state and federal courts.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

The attorneys of Clark Hill have extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution procedures and assist clients frequently in resolving their disputes promptly, cost-effectively and with an eye toward achieving a creative business solution, typically not available through the litigation system. There are a number of ADR procedures available, including arbitration, facilitation, evaluation, collaborative divorce, divorce mediation, and mini-trials. Through the considerable expertise of Clark Hill attorneys, gained both by serving to represent clients in ADR proceedings, and as moderators helping to fashion the solution in the process, Clark Hill helps its clients determine the appropriateness of ADR as early in the dispute as possible, and thereafter, helps to structure the ADR proceedings to best fit the particular need.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Services (ADR) offered by Clark Hill attorneys can be an effective alternative to the traditional method of resolving disputes through the litigation system. Clark Hill attorneys apply their considerable skills, multi-year experience, and seasoned knowledge to settle disputes promptly, and more cost-effectively, than in typical court proceedings. ADR proceedings can also provide participants such benefits as confidentiality and creativity of solution, which typically are not available through litigation.

Economy

ADR proceedings are designed to reduce the cost of litigation by streamlining the hearing process, using persons knowledgeable in the subject matter of the dispute, and strictly defining the information to be exchanged by the parties. Through these efforts, the length of the proceeding can be significantly shortened, reducing the high cost of discovery, motions, depositions, and trial, which are associated with traditional court proceedings.

Privacy

ADR proceedings are private, confidential proceedings. Frequently there is no record made of the proceeding and the resolution can be drafted to safeguard proprietary, or even simply delicate information. The proceedings are not open to the public, as is required in virtually all court matters. As a result, parties can resolve their disputes and their differences in private, and hopefully preserve a business relationship.

Convenience

ADR proceedings are scheduled to accommodate the schedules of all parties and are not dependent upon finding available time on crowded court dockets. Moreover, ADR proceedings can be conducted in private, comfortable conference rooms at Clark Hill's offices or any location selected with the mutual consent of the parties.

Virtually any dispute is capable of being resolved by the use of ADR. Clark Hill attorneys have acted as ADR facilitators, moderators, and representatives in matters as diverse as construction disputes, child custody proceedings, valuation of a dissenting shareholder's stock interest in connection with a corporate merger, personal injury accidents, eminent domain proceedings, labor disputes, sexual harassment disputes, and professional liability matters, as well as complex business matters. Additionally, ADR techniques are extremely flexible and can be modified to address the parties' specific concerns. Typical ADR procedures include the following:

Facilitation or Mediation

Here, the facilitator acts as a neutral party to work toward a settlement between the parties by finding common ground for discussion, encouraging fair settlements, brainstorming for creative solutions, and otherwise providing the objective view of a knowledgeable third person to try to resolve stalemates. This is generally initiated even before, or shortly after, litigation commences. Recently the Michigan Supreme Court amended the Michigan Court Rules to allow parties in litigation to choose facilitation as a means of attempting settlements directly, rather than using the Court mandated evaluation process. A number of Clark Hill attorneys have completed the Supreme Court 40-hour Facilitator Training Program.

Evaluation

Evaluation involves requesting one or more neutral parties to put a settlement value on a case following presentations by the parties of their respective positions. The evaluation procedure is typically more informal than court proceedings. The evaluations provide the parties with their objective assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position, and terms upon which the case should settle. Often, the evaluation figure, which is non-binding, is a springboard for further settlement discussions should the parties not accept the evaluation. Very frequently, evaluation is combined with facilitation services to maximize the opportunity to resolve the dispute. A number of Clark Hill attorneys serve frequently as Case Evaluators.

Arbitration

This is the most widely known and traditional alternative to litigation, in which a single arbitrator or panel of three arbitrators, chosen by mutual consent of the parties, hear and decide the dispute. This process can be binding in the same way as litigation since the award of the arbitrator(s) can be enforced by the courts. It differs from court litigation in that there is typically far less formal discovery, or information exchanged, if any, between the parties prior to the arbitration.

Mini-Trials

Mini-Trials are structured negotiations, in which each party's best case is presented to the chief executive officers or other senior managers of both parties, and a moderator, in a joint session. There is often an exchange of information including documents, and witness interviews or depositions in advance of the presentations. Parties, or their attorneys, if participating in the proceeding, present the matter as if at trial, with the CEO's or Senior Managers and moderator playing the part of judge and jury. The evidence is offered in summary fashion. After hearing each party's best evidence and arguments, the CEO's or Senior Managers meet and attempt to resolve the dispute, with a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases.

Clark Hill attorneys have extensive experience in the area of ADR. Its members include former judges at both the trial and appellate level who are able to offer the unique perspective of having been the finder of fact in hundreds of legal disputes. Its attorneys have taken leadership roles in the various committees of the American and State bar associations advocating alternative dispute resolution programs as an alternative to court litigation. Clark Hill attorneys have a national reputation in acting as moderators of ADR proceedings and frequently lecture on ADR topics at Judicial Institutes in providing ADR educational materials to Michigan judges at all levels of the Michigan Judicial System. Our attorneys have also trained other lawyers in the field of ADR procedures. Clark Hill attorneys are panel members of the American Arbitration Association panel of Commercial, Construction and Employment Arbitrators and Mediators, and have been certified as Master Arbitrators and appointed to the Large Complex-Case Panel of Arbitrators.