In this appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, Dinsmore argued that an employment policy that imposes a uniform minimum length of service requirement for leave eligibility with no exception for maternity leave is not direct evidence of sex discrimination under Revised Code Chapter 4112, seeking reversal of the Fifth District Court of Appeals. After full briefing and oral argument to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Supreme Court agreed establishing, as a proposition of law, that an employment policy that imposes a uniform minimum length of service requirement for leave eligibility with no exception for maternity leave is not direct evidence of sex discrimination under R.C. Chapter 4112.

Plaintiff Union claimed violation of prevailing wage and hour laws under Ohio Revised Code. Successfully negotiated a settlement at less than 50% of full value of case and avoided attorneys fees.

Obtained summary judgment in United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on disability discrimination claim brought by former employee.

Just one month before trial in August 2012, Dinsmore obtained a summary dismissal of a suit filed by a former security officer who was terminated after 13 years of employment for failing to immediately report to his superiors information regarding possible theft of the Company’s product, alcoholic beverages. The officer alleged that he was subjected to race discrimination and a racially hostile work environment and that he had been terminated in retaliation for having filed two EEOC charges 2½ years earlier. The officer also acknowledged that he had failed to timely report information about possible theft, but claimed that a “mixed-motive” standard should apply, allowing a plaintiff to proceed by arguing that his termination was motivated by both lawful and unlawful reasons. The Court rejected this theory, stating that the officer had not proffered evidence that any employee who failed to timely report suspected theft received a less severe discipline. Further, the Court dismissed the officer’s racially hostile work environment claim on the grounds that the two instances upon which he based his claims were not directed at him because of his race and did not constitute racial harassment. Finally, the Court dismissed the retaliatory discharge claim on the grounds that the officer did not proffer evidence of a causal connection between his 2005 EEOC charges (both of which were dismissed) and his 2008 termination. Accordingly, the case was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the summary dismissal of the security officer's claims in their entirety.

Plaintiff brought class action intentional tort claims and product liability claims. Successfully negotiated dismissal of claims against client without payment by client.

Won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The 7th Circuit upheld summary judgment in Defendant’s favor against claims for sex, disability, and retaliation under the Pregnancy discrimination Act, Title VII, and Americans with Disabilities Act

Lead counsel for Columbia in a case alleging race discrimination and racial harassment in the workplace. After successful mediation efforts, a settlement agreement was drafted between the parties. The plaintiff thereafter alleged that he had not agreed to the terms of the agreement, and fired his counsel after he took a contradictory position on the issue. Testimony was elicited at a hearing from Columbia’s in-house counsel and the plaintiff's original trial counsel, each of whom testified that the written agreement comported with a verbal agreement reached between the parties. The district court held, therefore, that the agreement accurately reflected the settlement terms, and that the plaintiff had authorized his original counsel to reach agreement on each term. Enforcement of the agreement was ordered, and was affirmed on appeal by the Fourth Circuit.

Our firm defended a large national insurance company on claims that it unfairly violated Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) and otherwise disciplined Howard in retaliation for complaints about her workload as a P&C adjuster, about her supervisor and the Market Claim Manager and/or because she had a disability in violation of the ADA. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.