Employment Law Representative Cases

     Voudris Law LLC has filed more than 140 employment-related lawsuits over the past six years. The following are a few examples of the type of cases filed against employers by our lawyers:

Disability Discrimination:  Cleveland Housing Network, CVS, Energizer, Hyatt, Keystone Peer Review, Nextant Aerospace, Owners Management, Parking Solutions, PPG Industries, Sheetz, South Shore Cable Construction, Sparton Medical Systems 

Sexual Harassment:  Burger King, Cadillac Ranch, Imperial Electric, Northern States Metals, Pomeroy IT Solutions, The Service Companies, Wendy’s

Race Discrimination:  Aramark, Cars Recon, Golden Living Center, Rent-A-Center, Target, Walgreens, Wireless U of Ohio d/b/a T-Mobile

National Origin Discrimination:  Sysco, West-Ward Pharmaceuticals

Age Discrimination:  Burger King, Guitar Center, Mr. Chicken  

Sex Discrimination or Harassment:  Garda, Genesis Health Care, Hope Homes, Verizon Wireless

Retaliation:  American Tire Distributors, Dixon Valve, ITS Traffic Systems, Kelly Services, Mercy Health, Parkside Care, VSM Sewing, Women’s Welsh Clubs, Wendy’s

Minimum Wage:  McDonald’s, Panini’s, Stancato’s, State-Wide Express, Vixcon

Overtime:  Bath Manor, Breitenbach Wine Cellars, Calhoun Funeral Homes, CBHV, Covenant Security, G4S, Grace Hospice, Integrity Field Services, Laird Plastics, Medic Home Health Care, Ohio Catholic Federal Credit Union, OhioGuidestone, Ohio Technical College, Republic Steel, Stancato’s, Stride Tool, TMT Consolidated, Walgreens, Window King

FMLA:  Golden Living Center, Graphic Packaging, Menorah Park Center for Senior Living, United Way

Severance or Non-Compete Agreements:  Famous Enterprises, Perio

Wage and Hour Collective Action Cases:

  • Carter v. Stancato’s Italian Restaurant (Northern District of Ohio Federal Ct.) (collective action of similarly situated servers who were allegedly forced to participate in an illegal tip pool by being required to share their tips with dishwashers and management)
  • Zaucha v. Panini’s (aka LLO, Inc.) (Northern District of Ohio Federal Ct.) (collective action of similarly situated servers and bartenders who allegedly were not paid at least minimum wage because of required deductions for missing silverware and plates, for cleaning expenses, and for missing liquor)
  • Rodriquez v. Briarwood Healthcare Community (Summit County Common Pleas Ct.) (collective action of similarly situated health aid employees who allegedly were not paid for working through lunch)
  • Salameh v. Zayed (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Ct.) (collective action of similarly situated employees who were not paid overtime while working at a Sunoco gas station)
  • Martinez v. Maloney Jr. dba Andrews Auto Service (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Ct.) (collective action of similarly situated employees who were not paid overtime while working at an auto repair shop)

Other Employment Claims:

  • Lint v. South Euclid Childcare and Enrichment Center, LLC (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Ct.) (judgment for plaintiff in case involving employee being required to work during lunch hour but not being paid any wages for lunch hour, and employee not being paid overtime despite working more than 40 hours a week)
  • Carson v. Gardens of Western Reserve, Inc. (National Labor Relations Board) (settlement of asserted violation of the National Labor Relations Act where employee was fired for complaining about working conditions on Facebook; employer offered to reinstate employee to her job)
  • In re Inverted Healthcare Staffing, LLC d/b/a United Medsource, 365 NLRB No. 103 (National Labor Relations Board) (judgment for violation of the National Labor Relations Act where employee was fired for sending an email to other employees raising concerns about job security)

Unemployment Compensation:

  • J.W. v. Ohio Automobile Club dba AAA (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • R.M. v. Kindred Healthcare (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • C. P. v. Aurora Manor Nursing Home (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • W. G. v. Service Companies (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • B. H. v. RX Options, Inc.  (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • F. K. v. South Shore Cable Construction Inc.  (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • A. H. v. Perio Inc. (unemployment benefits awarded after telephone hearing)
  • E. A. v. Target Corp. (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • O. M. v. Akwen Ltd. dba Wendy's (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • K. W. v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation (unemployment benefits awarded after in-person hearing)
  • Lorton v. Gliatech, Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals) (unemployment benefits)

Other Cases:

  • Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. Dahn (S.D. Fla.) ($1.2 million judgment against insurance agent for misappropriating premium payments from senior citizens)
  • Libby v. American Bankers Sales Corp., 369 Ill. App. 3d 1051 (Ill. App. Ct.) (affirming summary judgment of tortious interference with employment relations claim)
  • 3B's Realty Co. v. American Industrial Properties REIT, 869 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA) (real estate fraud claim)
  • Sutherland v. ITT Residential Capital Corp., 702 N.E.2d 436 (Ohio Ct. App.) (affirming class action settlement over the objections of proposed interveners)
  • McIlraith v. General Electric Capital Assurance Co., 146 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla.) (life insurance coverage matter)
  • Adelstein v. Unicare Life and Health Insurance Co., 135 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (M.D. Fla.) (ERISA make whole doctrine)
  • Demyan v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22699 (S.D. Fla.) (ERISA litigation)
  • Ward v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America, 383 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Miss.) (tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, slander, and trade secret claims)

     Past results are not a guarantee of future results.  The mere fact that a particular type of case was resolved for a particular amount should not be taken to indicate that all such similar cases would be resolved for a like sum.  Each case is unique and dependent on the particular facts and circumstances of that case, the law in effect at the time the case was decided, the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the severity of the damages, the credibility of the witnesses, and numerous other case-specific factors that influence the settlement or verdict amounts.

Voudris Law LLC
Winbury Professional Center
8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
440-543-0670 (phone)
440-543-0721 (fax)
svoudris@voudrislaw.com

     The materials on this website and any information provided to you by phone, email, or in-person are for informational purposes only and are not legal advice.  No attorney-client relationship is formed until a fee agreement is executed.

© Voudris Law LLC 2011-2017