MINNEAPOLIS, MN., August 15, 2025: Renee Fox, who uses the name Wren Clair in her profession as a meteorologist, has filed suit against KSTP, a local television broadcast station, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation while working as a meteorologist for KSTP. Halunen Law employment attorney, Paul Schinner, is representing Clair in this case.
Ms. Clair abruptly left the station in February 2024 after nearly seven years. The lawsuit alleges that throughout her work at the station, which ended in February 2025, she faced a range of troubling and illegal actions, including “severe, overtly sexist conduct by her coworkers and superiors,” constituting “sex-based disparate treatment and sexual harassment.” Ms. Clair brought her concerns to her supervisor, and in 2024, she reported the conduct directly to the company’s Human Resources department. She was subsequently demoted, fired, and replaced purportedly for poor performance, and replaced with “a less qualified man,” according to the Amended Complaint. The lawsuit further notes that Ms. Clair had two years remaining on her three-year contract at the time of her termination, was popular with viewers, and had consistently received positive performance reviews.
Ms. Clair’s attorney, Paul Schinner, commented, “The Amended Complaint alleges that our client endured persistent sexist double standards and deeply offensive conduct at KSTP for many years, and her firing ‘was abrupt, unexplained, and preceded by no documented disciplinary action, negative reviews, or performance improvement plans.’” Said Schinner, “We look forward to disproving KSTP’s claimed rationale for firing Wren–recited formulaically throughout its Answer—that she was terminated ‘as a result of her poor performance, on which she was repeatedly coached.’ We applaud Wren for her courage in challenging the experiences she had at KSTP and look forward to getting her the justice warranted by KSTP’s treatment of her as articulated in the Amended Complaint.”
Minnesota Star Tribune writer Mike Hughlett reports on a transgender harassment case against Walmart in a recent article: “After state ruling against Walmart, transgender man sues over harassment at West St. Paul Store.” The article provides a detailed account of the case and highlights national studies indicating widespread on-the-job harassment of transgender people. It notes that Minnesota has strong protections for transgender employees as one of 23 states with laws prohibiting transgender discrimination. The United States Supreme Court held in the 2020 Bostock case that Title VII’s antidiscrimination protections include transgender employees, but the use of federal law to protect these employees is under attack. Noting that Bostock is “the law of the land,” Halunen Law employment attorney Josh Newville commented: “..given the Trump administration’s anti-transgender stance, I’m greatly concerned that the EEOC is not going to enforce the law,” adding, “For LGBT persons in states lacking protection against employment discrimination, it’s a scary time.”
If you or someone you know has experienced gender or other forms of workplace discrimination, we encourage you to learn more about employment rights and protections on the Minnesota Department of Human Rights website and the Halunen Law website. If, upon reviewing this information, you believe you may have a case, you can submit a Case Review Form or call us at 612-605-4098 to speak with one of our Intake Specialists.
A tenacious litigator who frequently obtains favorable outcomes for those he represents, Josh Newville leads Halunen Law’s Employment Litigation Group. He is a skilled, thoughtful, and determined professional who brings more than a decade of experience, a deep dedication to civil rights, and a commitment to excellence to his legal practice.
By Rocket55DevAdmin |
HR Daily Advisor, a widely-recognized website offering resources for HR professionals, recently published attorney Pamela Johnson’s article, “Workplace Harassment and Discrimination: What’s the Difference?” The article provides a thorough, thoughtful examination of the complexities of workplace harassment and discrimination, why understanding the difference is important, and steps employees can take to address these illegal actions.
“Unfortunately, regardless of company size or job title, any employee can be subject to both harassment and discrimination. Yet there is a common misunderstanding of what exactly constitutes workplace harassment and discrimination. By having a clear understanding of what they are and how they can be connected, employees will gain a deeper understanding of how to protect themselves. Ultimately, everyone deserves to know their rights and their legal options.”
Committed to clients’ rights, Halunen Law attorney Pamela Johnsonis particularly passionate about representing employees and believes strongly that everyone should be treated fairly, especially in the workplace. She brings the power of persuasion, an impressive reputation for advocacy and achievement, and a depth of legal knowledge to bear for all those she represents.
By Rocket55DevAdmin |
In “Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Understanding the difference,” published in BenefitsPro, veteran employment attorney Pamela Johnson offers insights into complex workplace dynamics and how employees can identify and respond to illegal workplace activity.
Johnson shares, “The hard truth is that in workplaces large and small, regardless of position, employees can be the target of harassment, discrimination, or both. Havinga clear understanding of what workplace harassment and discriminationare, and when the two are linked, can go a long way in helping youunderstand your rights, and by extension, what legal options may be available to you.”
As a member of Halunen Law’s Employment Litigation Group, attorney Pamela Johnsonhas an impressive reputation for advocacy and achievement, bringing the power of persuasion and a depth of legal knowledge to bear for all those she represents.
By Rocket55DevAdmin |
In the October 4, 2024 article. “EEOC Suits Warn Employers To Take Harassment Seriously,” Law360 reporter Vin Gurrieri examines the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) filing of approximately 110 merit lawsuits in fiscal year 2024, ending September 30.Many of the cases accused employers of fostering environments in which workers were consistently harassed based on sex or race.
Halunen Law’s Employment Litigation Group Leader, Josh Newville, weighs in on the EEOC’s filings, sharing that the commission is “sending a very clear and very strong message” with its enforcement approach, a message that is difficult for individual employees to send on their own.
Read the full article, which includes additional commentary by Newville and further discussion of the EEOC’s latest anti-harassment enforcement push.
Halunen Law Employment Litigation Group Leader Josh Newville brings a commitment to excellence and more than a decade of experience to the firm’s Employment Law team. He has handled high-profile cases, secured millions of dollars for his clients, and won victories at the Minnesota Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals.
By Rocket55DevAdmin |
Shot of a group of businesspeople working in an office
You found a work-from-home routine that meets your needs, you’ve been a productive remote or hybrid employee, and you were hoping the working arrangement would become permanent. We get it. There’s tension, as you like your setup and don’t want to see it changed.
Unfortunately, many employers feel differently. According to Resume Builder, which surveyed 1,000 organizational stakeholders in 2023, 90 percent of participants say their company plans to return to the office by the end of 2024. Nearly 30 percent of those companies may threaten to fire employees who won’t comply with return-to-office mandates. This raises the question: Can you be forced to return to the office or be fired by your employer if you don’t comply?
Your (Lack of) Legal Options
If you are concerned about returning to the office, your options are likely limited. Except in rare cases, return-to-office mandates do not qualify as harassment or discrimination, meaning an employer can require you to work in the office.
Can You be Fired for Not Returning to the Office?
In many instances, yes. Most employees in the United States work at-will, which means their employer can terminate them for any legal reason, at any time, without facing liability. If you work at-will, your company can update their terms of employment without consequences or notice, meaning they can say you must work from the office to continue your employment.
If you have already been terminated by your employer, and think it was wrongful, read our page on wrongful termination for more information.
Can I Refuse to Return to the Office?
Employers may set their own workplace policies, including where, when and how you work. Unless your employer hired you in a role specifically designated as a remote position, you have a contract in place, or you have a disability that requires accommodation, options are limited.
However, even with a contract, your preferred working arrangement may not be recognized by your employer unless you have a severance provision or some other type of enforcement clause that guarantees a remedy in the event of contract breach or termination. Otherwise, an employer can choose to terminate your employment and move on to a candidate who is more amenable to working in the office.
If a return-to-office mandate impacts you negatively, you may have legal grounds to challenge your employer. Otherwise, the vast majority of U.S.-based employees are obligated to work where their employer tells them to.
Your Non-Legal Options
Given this lack of legal options, if you want flexibility in returning to the office, you may have leverage with your employer — especially if you have rare skills and are in an industry with a job market that favors employees over employers, meaning you could have several businesses lining up to hire you if you left your company.
The general consensus among employers is that returning to the office improves productivity and profitability, and is good for company culture. On the other hand, many employers also understand the perks of working from home and have reasons to want to retain employees. As a result, many companies are taking a hybrid approach, requiring employees to return to office two to four days a week, instead of the full five. In fact, some employers are even offering benefits to help cover commuting and childcare costs to make this happen.
Instead of threatening to quit over a return-to-office mandate, you are likely better off trying to negotiate an accommodation, salary increase or one-time bonus, especially if you work in a competitive industry where your skills are in demand. Perhaps your manager can be flexible about which days you need to be in the office, or they can offer additional perks, like increased PTO or a more robust benefits package to help ease the burden and inconvenience of your increased office time.
If you’re at a business that’s experiencing healthy growth, it may also be a good time to negotiate a salary increase or one-time performance bonus. Good timing and a tactical approach are critical. If you can point to strong reviews, a diverse and invaluable skillset, and a recent list of accomplishments to justify your request, you may have leverage to position yourself for more money. You may not get the exact answer you want to hear, but your employer might give you a counteroffer that was worth all your effort.
But make sure your timing is thoughtful. If your company or industry is going through a period of layoffs, and low or no profits, this may not be the time to push for more benefits or money.
In the end, your employer may require you to return to the office, and that, without more egregious or illegal acts, generally does not constitute discrimination or a hostile environment. But thinking creatively about how to present your situation may persuade your employer to accommodate some of your requests.
If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win. We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.
By Rocket55DevAdmin |
Across our nation, women employed at fast-food establishments are frequently experiencing the horrors of sexual harassment, abuse or assault in their workplace. A survey1 conducted by Hart Research Associates reports that 40% of female fast-food workers reported having been sexually harassed, abused, or assaulted on the job.The survey, which included polling 1,217 women aged 16 and older who work in fast food restaurants in non-managerial positions, found that two in five women had been subjected to some form of sexual harassment, including sexual assault and rape in their jobs. This pervasive reality in the fast-food industry suggests that operators of fast-food restaurants may be more concerned about profits than safe recruiting practices, hiring practices, training, and staff supervision.
Types of Harassment Experienced
The researchers asked workers whether they had experienced any of the 18 types of behaviors constituting sexual harassment while on the job, including behavior considered part of hostile work environments. The survey found that the most common types of harassment these workers faced included:
Unwanted sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions (27%)
Unwanted hugging or touching (26%)
Unwanted questions about sexual interests (20%)
Sexually suggestive gestures (18%)
Kissing or groping (10%)
Further, 8% experienced requests for sex (including in exchange for work benefits), and 2% experienced sexual assault or rape on the job.
Physical and Mental Impacts Suffered
Nearly half of the female respondents who experienced sexual harassment, assault, or abuse reported health problems that resulted, with more than one-third saying they experienced a greater level of stress on the job and more than 20% saying they feared going into their workplaces. Female employees also reported feeling greater sadness and depression, becoming less productive, and having their sleep and appetite affected.
Although many fast-food chains have sexual harassment policies and procedures, female respondents found such policies and procedures ineffective. Most women who reported sexual harassment or assault to the employer were given only informal responses, including advice to simply avoid the offender.
Finally, one in five of those who reported the sexual harassment found that their employer engaged in various forms of retaliation, including cutting hours, scheduling less desirable shifts, assigning undesirable job duties, denying a raise or promotion, and terminating employment.
Additionally troubling, the survey found that 42% of women who experienced unwanted sexual harassment or assault felt they had no choice but to endure the harassment because they could not afford to lose their job.
Halunen Law attorneys are here to help
If you have experienced workplace sexual harassment, assault or abuse, or if your employer retaliated against you for reporting this conduct, the attorneys at Halunen Law can help.
The attorneys at Halunen Law can guide you through the process of reporting sexual harassment, assault, or abuse to company management or human resources—a process that can be an effective way to address the problem.
Halunen Law attorneys can also help you consider other options for addressing sexual harassment, assault or abuse in the workplace. These include filing a Charge of Discrimination with an appropriate state or federal civil rights office or filing a lawsuit against your employer for monetary damages.
You do not have to face sexual harassment, assault or abuse in the workplace alone. Halunen Law attorneys will stand with you to stop the conduct, protect your right to a workplace free of sexual harm, and fight to receive compensation for what you have experienced.
If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win. We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.
Employees frequently call our office because they are being harassed or bullied by a boss or co-worker.You might be surprised to learn that, generally, workplace bullying is not illegal.
We are often told that the employer has an Employee Handbook that includes some form of Respectful Workplace Policy that prohibits any type of offensive behavior, including bullying.Many employees believe failing to enforce the policy is somehow illegal because the policy prohibits bullying.This is not true.Most Employee Handbooks indicate they are not contracts.This generally means that the employer is not legally obligated to enforce the handbook unless an exception applies.
But here is the good news— there are exceptions to this rule.
The most common protection for bullied employees comes from state or federal non-discrimination laws.To be protected, an employee must be able to connect their age, disability, race, religion, orientation, medical leave, gender, or other protected status to a hostile work environment.So, the bullying must be motivated by the protected status.For example, if a gay employee is taunted or subjected to bullying by co-workers because they are gay, and this negatively impacts the employee’s ability to perform their job, an employer’s failure to stop the conduct promptly once on notice could be actionable.If a supervisor or manager is causing the bullying, the employer may be automatically liable if the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Similarly, bullying may be illegal if an employee engages in what is called “protected conduct,” such as raising concerns over violations of law or taking time off for a serious medical condition, and the employer responds by creating a hostile work environment or taking other actions to force the employee to quit. This behavior may violate state or federal whistleblower or non-retaliation laws.
When the bullying is caused by either protected status or protected conduct, the remedies available to the employee are monetary damages to compensate for wage and benefit loss, emotional distress damage, and attorney fees and costs.
Some employees have pursued claims against employers for allowing bullying to create an unsafe workplace in violation of the OSHA General Duty Clause, Sec. 5(a)(1). That clause requires the employer to provide “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees…”Cases have also been brought against employers who retaliate against employees who report feeling unsafe in the workplace because of bullying by a co-worker or supervisor.
Some states, like Minnesota, have Freedom From Violence statutes that require zero tolerance for violence.In Absey v. Dish Network, 2013 WL 2460235 (Minn. App. June 10, 2013), an employee complained to their Human Resources Department about a boss who punched a hole in a door and threw a satellite dish and papers at the employee. The employee’s job was later eliminated, and his application for a new position was rejected. A jury found that the Freedom from Violence statute was violated because the employee’s whistleblowing on the violence issue was a motivating factor in the company’s decision not to offer the employee the new position.
Another protection used successfully has been pursuing claims under a state Disorderly Conduct statute.These statutes typically make it unlawful for people to engage in brawling, fighting, disruptions to assembly or public meetings, or engaging in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct tending to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment towards others.These types of cases have been few and far between, so the law in the area is not yet well settled.
If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win. We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.
Attorney Susan Coler is driven to confront illegal corporate conduct and pursue justice on behalf of her courageous clients. She is a Minnesota State Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Specialist, is rated as AV®-Preeminent by the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review, has consistently been named a “Super Lawyer” since 2008, and has been named several times on the Super Lawyer’s list of Top 50 Women Attorneys in Minnesota.
By Rocket55DevAdmin |
Each of us is more than the sum of our parts. No single characteristic defines us; rather, we are an amalgamation of different traits, inclinations, experiences and perspectives.
For some people, their unique combination of biology and background means they’re members of more than one class that the law protects from workplace discrimination and harassment. A Black woman can experience prohibited discrimination premised on her race and her gender. A gay Jewish man may be the victim of harassment and abuse because of his religion and sexual orientation.
Known as “intersectional discrimination,” this type of workplace conduct is widespread and increasingly recognized by courts as the basis for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal and state anti-discrimination laws. When the claim involves discrimination against a woman because of her gender and membership in another protected class, it’s sometimes called a “sex-plus” claim. And when age is the other asserted basis for an employer’s discriminatory actions (e.g., a woman in her 50s who’s terminated because of her sex plus her age), that’s ”gendered ageism.” It’s illegal, and can be the basis of a claim for compensation and other relief.
Intersectional Discrimination Defined and Recognized
“The ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class and other forms of discrimination “intersect” to create unique dynamics and effects. For example, when a Muslim woman wearing the Hijab is being discriminated, it would be impossible to dissociate her female from her Muslim identity and to isolate the dimension(s) causing her discrimination.”
Over the past two decades, many federal and state courts have repeatedly recognized and allowed intersectional discrimination and harassment claims to proceed as employment claims when employees experienced disparate treatment because of their membership in more than one protected class. As one federal court noted, “Some characteristics, such as race, color, and national origin, often fuse inextricably. Made flesh in a person, they indivisibly intermingle. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on any of the named characteristics, whether individually or in combination.”
Sex-Plus-Age Discrimination Claims
Many cases that recognize intersectional discrimination involve older female workers who claim they suffered adverse employment actions based on their gender and ages. Many state laws, including the Minnesota Human Rights Act, prohibit both age and gender discrimination. While “age” isn’t a protected class under Title VII, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits age-based discrimination in the workplace, making a gendered ageism case viable under federal law as well.
Despite its illegality, workplace age discrimination is rampant in a business, societal, and technological culture that often venerates youth over experience. Approximately 453,000 American workers filed age discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission between 1997 and 2020, while about one in five workers over age 40 and one in four workers over age 60 believe they have experienced age discrimination in the workplace, according to a Senior Living survey.
While men and women can experience age-based discrimination, studies have shown that it disproportionally affects female workers, especially women of color. A 2023 analysis of gendered ageism in the workplace noted that:
“Age discrimination is not equal; ageism tends to be gendered. … Studies exploring the well-being of working women have indicated that women are more likely to be victimized by all forms of discrimination, including ageism. In one study of 6,642 women over 18, 63% of those over 50 stated that they were discriminated against. Women, particularly women of color, are further subjected to the intersecting prejudices of age, ethnicity, and gender bias.” (citations omitted)
A 2020 federal appellate decision illustrates how courts recognize and treat sex-plus-age discrimination claims. In Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC, the plaintiffs brought claims under Title VII and the ADEA, alleging their employer terminated them based on their ages and gender. Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of their claims, the appellate court held that “sex-plus-age claims are cognizable under Title VII,” noting that “Ample precedent holds that Title VII forbids ‘sex-plus’ discrimination in cases in which the ‘plus-’ characteristic is not itself protected under the statute.”
The court thus concluded that:
“Intersectional discrimination against older women is a form of discrimination based on sex stereotypes that Title VII was intended to prohibit. And discrimination against older women that does not target older men is a form of sex discrimination.”
Whether based on one protected trait or a combination of characteristics, workplace discrimination is illegal. It unfairly deprives qualified individuals of opportunities or subjects them to hurtful and demeaning behavior or comments. No one should have to abide by or endure such treatment.
If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win. We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.
As a member of Halunen Law’s Employment Practice Group, Pamela Johnson brings an impressive reputation for advocacy and achievement. Her clients benefit from her breadth of experience, stellar track record, and exceptional insight.
By Rocket55DevAdmin |
Most employers don’t offer severance packages to laid-off employees out of the kindness of their hearts. They do so because they’re buying something. That something may be employees’ release of any harassment or discrimination claims or promises not to solicit employers’ customers. Employers also use severance agreements to buy employees’ silence. As a result, employees are frequently barred from discussing the terms of their agreements or making disparaging remarks about their employers.
But under a Feb. 23, 2023, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, employers can’t use severance agreements to silence laid-off or furloughed employees. Reversing a decision made under the previous administration, the board held in McLaren Macomb that requiring a laid-off employee to sign a nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreement as a condition of receiving severance benefits violates the employee’s rights under the NLRA.
Specifically, the board found that “a severance agreement is unlawful if its terms have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their [NLRA] Section 7 rights, and that employers’ proffer of such agreements to employees is unlawful.”
Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
While that language may sound like it only applies to unionized workers, Section 7 applies to all nonmanagerial or nonsupervisory employees (except airline and railroad employees), whether in a unionized workplace or not.
Agreements Can’t ‘Preclude an Employee from Assisting Coworkers With Workplace Issues
In McLaren, 11 furloughed employees signed severance agreements that contained the following common nondisclosure and nondisparagement language that the NLRB ultimately found unlawful:
Confidentiality Agreement. The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.
Nondisclosure. At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer, its parent and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.
The board determined that “[p]ublic statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act.” Accordingly, “a severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”
Not only did the board hold that such agreements were unlawful, but it also concluded that proposing provisions that restrain employees from discussing the terms of their employment or severance violates the NLRA:
Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain employed.
What the Decision Means for Laid-Off Employees
Decisions like McLaren are the primary means through which the NLRB makes and enforces policy. As such, this case now represents the board’s official position on these provisions in severance agreements. When the board reviews similar agreements in the future, it will rely on the McLaren decision to guide its analysis, unless a court of appeals vacates the decision.
As a result, employers may have a difficult time enforcing existing severance agreements that contain nondisclosure or nondisparagement provisions like those above. If you’re a recently or soon-to-be laid-off employee and receive a proposed severance agreement, the NLRB decision is one more reason to consult with experienced employment counsel before signing anything. Understanding your rights, as well as the limits on what employers may ask of you, can be the key to negotiating and securing the best possible severance package.
If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win. We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.
A tenacious litigator who frequently obtains favorable outcomes for those he represents, 
