|
|
|
|
|
|
In the News
• In a seven-day jury trial in Denver District Court, the Firm’s attorneys successfully
represented a prominent Colorado law firm that sought to enforce a non-solicitation and
non-disclosure agreement against one of its former employees. The Firm also successfully
defended the law firm and its owner against the former employee’s counterclaims for
defamation and unfair trade practices. See links:
Denver Post
Law 360
• In the Fall of 2021, the Firm’s attorneys prevailed in a federal jury trial on
behalf of a multi-state employer accused of failure to promote on the basis of gender,
race and ethnicity. The jury reached its verdict in under 90 minutes. The employee
challenged the results at the trial court level to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On behalf of the Company, the attorneys of Martinez Law Group successfully defeated
the appeal as well. See articles:
Law 360
Colorado Springs Gazette
• The Firm prevailed in an appeal before the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Salemi v. Colorado Public Employees’
Retirement Association, et al. The Tenth Circuit
issued a 51-page decision affirming the summary judgment dismissal of
the plaintiff’s Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation claims,
§ 1981 race/national origin retaliation claim, First Amendment retaliation
claim, and FMLA retaliation claim, and affirming the district court’s
finding that the plaintiff had never properly raised an EPA retaliation
claim before or during trial.
See the article here
• In 2017, a jury returned a defense verdict
on behalf of Colorado’s largest pension fund. The plaintiff originally
brought 19 claims against 3 defendants, and 18 of the claims were dismissed
before trial.
See Colorado PERA Prevails in Pay Equity Case, Law Week Colorado.
• In 2016, a motion for final approval of the
Settlement was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. Notice of the Settlement, which creates a substantial
common fund from which payments shall be made to class members, and for attorneys’
fees and costs, was sent to more than 100,000 class members, and no class
member objected or opted out.
• In 2016, after a two-week trial in Cohen v. Public
Services Co. of Colorado, the jury returned a total defense verdict for the
firm’s client. The plaintiff had sued her former employer with gender
discrimination claims under Title VII.
See Martinez Law Group Sees Victory in Title VII Case, Law Week Colorado (June 6, 2016).
• Also in 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida preliminarily approved a class action settlement providing or equitable relief as well
as substantial damages on Behalf of the Class, and appointed a MLG attorney as Co-Lead Class
Counsel. The case, O’Brien v. GovSimplified, is a consumer class action brought by the firm
against an internet company.
See Class Action Targets GovSimplified for Deceptive Practices, Law360 (Jan. 23, 2015).
• Meghan W. Martinez has been named by Law Week Colorado among its
handful of “Lawyers of the Year”.
• Meghan W. Martinez has been named by the Denver Business
Journal as the 2015 Power Book Leader in the industry of Law.
• The Firm’s attorneys filed class actions in federal district court
in New York and Colorado against J. Crew and Build-A-Bear respectively, on behalf
of the National Federation of the Blind, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and
seven individual plaintiffs for disability discrimination:
• The Firm’s attorneys brought a class action in Massachusetts
federal court against The Container Store Inc. on behalf of the National Federation
of the Blind and individual plaintiffs for disability discrimination:
• Our Firm defended the employer in a medical marijuana case of first
impression, Coats v. DISH Network L.L.C., https://casetext.com/case/coats-v-dish-network-llc obtaining a unanimous decision in the employer’s favor.
• MLG filed a lawsuit against PetSmart on behalf of NFB and CCDC and
six blind individuals who reside in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas, alleging that
PetSmart discriminates against the blind in violation of the ADA and state law:
Resources
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
