Above and Beyond

The success of any business is directly tied to its employees. From their tangible contributions to the company to the mindset and culture they instill, a good workforce can be the tool that takes a company to the next level.

Tri-Arrows Aluminum embraces a “gold standard” approach to doing business, challenging its employees to go above the call of duty and push the company to new heights while also maintaining an atmosphere of conducting business the “right way.” Formerly a subsidiary of BP Company North America that was known as ARCO Aluminum, Tri-Arrows turned to Dinsmore for counsel when it became clear it would soon be an independent company. Recognizing the opportunity to start anew, Tri-Arrows enlisted Dinsmore to begin drafting new policies and procedures, including a new payroll structure and performance review system, as well as providing guidance on which employment laws the new company was, or was not, required to comply with in its new form with a smaller workforce. Integrating ourselves in the culture of the new company, we drafted a new employee handbook, modifying the legacy policies to fit the new regime, but also constructing a unique framework that reflected the objectives of Tri-Arrows.

Once the basic framework for their employment procedures was established, we continued to offer guidance on business ethics, including conducting on-site Code of Ethics training for employees. Understanding the potential for concern caused by Tri-Arrows unique joint venture agreement, in which they have shared manufacturing facilities with a competitor for over a quarter of a century, our team worked with Tri-Arrows’ employees to address issues of confidentiality and the handling of business-sensitive information, arming the employees with the knowledge they needed to uphold the company’s mission without compromising proprietary information.

As Tri-Arrows continues to grow, its employment needs grow as well. Our attorneys have teamed with the company to provide a variety of services, including reviewing compensation plans, detailing job descriptions and employee classifications, and formally instituting a performance evaluation process. Our detail-oriented approach to employment counseling has fallen in step with Tri-Arrows’ professional culture, and we’ve helped this newly-formed company build a solid foundation that will enable it to reach the next level.

We have represented scores of foreign subsidiaries, sometimes for the same client, from international labor and employment issues to tax and corporate issues.  We leverage our long history of assisting clients to expand internationally through foreign direct investment.

Lead counsel for AT&T in litigation alleging that the plaintiff had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex, and was constructively discharged when she was forced to resign from her employment in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. AT&T sought summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff had failed to show that the conduct alleged to create a hostile environment was gender-based, and further that she has failed to establish that her working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to quit. Summary judgment was granted to AT&T.

Lead counsel in the successful defense of Georgia Pacific against claims by a group of former workers whose employment was terminated when Georgia Pacific sold a sawmill to a successor company. The plaintiffs contended that Georgia Pacific violated the terms of their collective bargaining agreement by not ensuring their subsequent employment with the successor company, and filed suit under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court found that the sale of the sawmill did not violate the CBA, as it reserved exclusively to Georgia Pacific certain rights, including the right to plan, direct, control, increase, decrease, or discontinue operations, or to move, close, sell, or liquidate it whole or in part. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to Georgia Pacific.

The firm represented The Courier-Journal before the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in a matter involving summary judgment standards and disability issues.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's determination of summary judgment for the Defendant employer.

Lead counsel for CNR in a case in which the plaintiff brought an employment discrimination suit alleging age and race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The court granted CNR summary judgment on a number of grounds and dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff's federal claims were untimely because she did not file her complaint within 90 days of receiving her notice of right to sue, as required under Title VII. The court exercised its supplemental jurisdiction to address the plaintiff's state law claims, and held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under Human Rights Act because there was no evidence to support a reasonable inference of age or race discrimination.

Plaintiff, a current employee and chef at a large resort, claimed that she was discriminated against based in her gender, specifically that she did not receive five promotions to which she alleged she was entitled. Despite a demand for damages in the upper six figures, during a mediation we resolved the case favorably for the client by offering her an open position at the resort as she was still a current employee, but paid no damages to settle the case.

The plaintiff claimed she received negative performance reviews and was demoted because of her gender (as management at this national sports marketing company were male former athlestes) and as a result of a disability. She also claimed she was the subject of retaliation when she complained about this discrimination, including threats and physical assault from a supervisor. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.

When an international technology company sought counsel on the impact of new federal labor laws, they turned to Dinsmore. We organized and conducted a panel discussion, featuring former representatives from the National Labor Relations Board and Dinsmore attorneys, focused on addressing current and pressing issues with regard to federal labor law, including social media, collective bargaining and regulations intended to accelerate elections. The training session educated and prepared members of the client’s human resources and labor personnel on the potential impact of relevant laws and initiatives, as well as strategies for effective compliance.

In 2009, I concluded several months of negotiations with the United Steel Workers. I was successful in achieving 76 percent of the Company's agenda items. In particular, we negotiated an attendance policy, short term disability program that was more restrictive, a past practices clause that allows the company to unilaterally terminate any past practices upon 30 days written notice, as well as negotiated the restructuring of 3 departments that resulted in the withdrawal of 5 arbitrations. The negotiations process included strike preparation and defending numerous ULP charges.

Lead counsel in defense of Regis in a class action claim alleging that, for a period of five years, it failed to issue final paychecks to former involuntarily discharged employees within 72 hours as required by the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. At issue are complex questions as to numerosity, commonality and typicality of the claims and defenses of the class, as well as the proper method for determining reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs potentially payable to class counsel. This matter remains in active litigation.

Federal District Court, Southern District of Ohio, granted summary judgement motion in favor of Ashland, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Lead counsel in case in which the plaintiff was terminated from her employment by AT&T for excessive absences due to plaintiff's and spouse's illnesses. After her termination, the plaintiff brought suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act and moved for partial summary judgment, which was granted. A trial was subsequently held to determine damages, the issues being whether plaintiff was entitled to back pay, front pay, and liquidated damages. The court ordered that plaintiff be paid back pay with interest, but adopted AT&T’s argument that the speculative nature of front pay made reinstatement a more appropriate remedy. Further, the court found that AT&T had acted in good faith and with reasonable grounds to believe that it acted properly, and thus that liquidated damages were not awardable.