Identifying legal solutions that work

FMG attorneys Jessica Farrelly and Jessica Cauley prevailed at a bench trial on behalf of their client, a non-profit private golf and country club, in the defense of a complaint alleging claims for breach of contract, violation of Florida Statute 720.305(2), breach of the Club’s governing documents, and injunctive relief. The case concerned the suspension of Plaintiff’s membership following the Club’s receipt and investigation of a complaint of alleged sexual harassment committed by Plaintiff against staff. Plaintiff claimed his suspension was improper and in violation of Florida law and the Club’s governing documents because he was not given 14 days’ notice of his suspension. FMG defeated Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment by providing the facts in support of the Club’s investigation and its justification for taking prompt remedial action.

At the subsequent trial, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to exclude all evidence regarding the Club’s investigation of Plaintiff’s conduct. In doing so, the Court determined the Club acted reasonably and justifiably and the circumstances warranted an exception to the strict 14-day notice requirement before suspension. Judgment was entered in favor of FMG’s client on all counts, and the Court further determined that, as the prevailing party, FMG’s client was entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Joseph Koscal v. Highland Woods Golf & Country Club, Inc., Civil Action No. 23-CA-007419, Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida 

Brad Adler, Michael Hill, and Kelli Spearman prevailed on all claims in a multi-day arbitration for a nationwide automotive-platform company. The plaintiff was a former sales manager who alleged the company terminated her employment in retaliation for her earlier complaint of alleged sexual and racial harassment. The plaintiff sought over $500,000 in damages as a part of her complaint. After a three-day arbitration, the Arbitrator ruled in the Company’s favor on all counts.

Brad Adler and Michael Hill obtained a defense verdict for a Fortune 500 company client in an arbitration alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff, a former sales manager with the company, first alleged the company failed to accommodate his disabilities by refusing to transfer him to a different work location. The plaintiff also alleged the company terminated his employment in retaliation for his having requested a reasonable accommodation. The arbitrator ruled in favor of our client, holding that any accommodation the plaintiff requested was not reasonable and that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his alleged request for accommodation and termination of employment. The arbitrator thus ruled in favor of the company on all claims.

Robert Chadwick obtained a favorable appellate ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) on behalf of a transportation company. After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge below dismissed a failure to bargain complaint by the NLRB’s General Counsel. On appeal, the NLRB affirmed the judge’s rulings, findings and conclusions, and dismissed the complaint.

Ben Mathis, Robert Marcovitch and Bill Buechner recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of Hall County in a class action pension lawsuit brought in the Superior Court.  In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought over $100 million dollars in seeking to overturn the County’s decision in 1998 to transition from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan.  Plaintiffs and their counsel have claimed that the named plaintiffs and a class of more than 100 current or former County employees they sought to represent were entitled to recover lost contributions and profits.

The County initially obtained summary judgment, but the ruling was vacated in part by the Georgia Court of Appeals with instructions for the Superior Court to consider certain issues on remand.  Although Plaintiffs asserted that a trial was required because of the appellate ruling, the Court was persuaded by the arguments that the County still was entitled to summary judgment.  Among other rulings, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that the freeze of accruals in the defined benefit plan constituted a termination of the defined benefit plan (thereby triggering notice and hearing obligations) even though the defined benefit plan has continued to operate up to the present.

Paul Piantino and the Aviation Practice Team secured a big win on summary judgment in New York Supreme Court in Erie County this past November. The case centers around the “duty to warn” and liability with respect to snow removal, a topic FMG has a great deal of expertise in.

Plaintiff was an employee of a private aircraft charter which leased certain sectors from Defendant Airport as part of its business activities. During a snowstorm at the Airport, Plaintiff was allegedly severely injured when she slipped and fell on ice. Plaintiff alleged that she was assisting in the removal of an airplane that had gone off the runway due to snowy and icy conditions.  The aircraft left the runway on to a grassy area and had to be towed out. Plaintiff herself was assisting in towing the aircraft out at the time of her injury.

Plaintiff maintained that Defendant acted negligently in creating and allowing a dangerous condition and failing to display proper warning notices so that the pilot would be aware of the end of the runway in snowy conditions. In addition, Plaintiff brought a New York Labor law claim arguing Defendant had a general obligation to protect the health and safety of all employees operating in the area of the Airport. FMG represented the Airport Authority who operated the Airport.

Defendant was able to demonstrate that it was not required to erect a warning sign and the lack thereof was not a significant factor in causing the injuries that resulted to Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant relied on the “snow in progress” doctrine. Specifically, while a storm was in progress, Defendant had no obligation to plow, sand  or otherwise clean the area. Defendant did, however, choose to plow the area to make it possible for the grounded plane to be removed. As such, Defendant Airport had a duty to “not exacerbate or create a dangerous condition.” (Wheeler, 31 A.D.3d at 993) In the Court’s view, Defendant did not- they simply plowed the area to assist in the plane’s removal.

Additionally, it was ascertained that Defendant  had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged icy conditions as this condition was allegedly present for less than one hour prior to the incident, and further, no complaints were received during that time. Lastly, it was determined that Plaintiff’s labor law claim was meritless because Plaintiff was not considered an employee of Defendant, and as such, Defendant did not have a duty to warn Plaintiff of “potentially dangerous machinery, equipment, and devices” (N.Y. Lab Law §200(2) (McKinney))

This is a notable case under New York law that touches on several vital and recurrent themes in tort law, especially as we head into the winter season. This case provides guidance when defending snow removal and “duty to warn” cases for FMG’s Tort and Catastrophic Loss Practice Section.