Anthony J. Pantuso III strives to obtain justice for individuals who have been wronged by corporate employers. He is the principal attorney at the Law Offices of Anthony J. Pantuso, III in Shelton, Connecticut.
Attorney Pantuso represents the victims of sexual harassment, discrimination in the workplace, those who have been wrongfully terminated, and those who are owed unpaid wages or overtime. He also represents employees in whistle-blower claims, severance negotiations and all other employment-related issues.
Attorney Pantuso has successfully represented individuals in class actions against major corporations, and has tried over 40 cases to verdict. He has appeared before both the Supreme and Appellate Courts of Connecticut and is admitted to practice law in the Connecticut Superior, Appellate and Supreme Courts, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Attorney Pantuso has gained broad experience in many fields of law, and has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury, workers compensation, medical and legal malpractice, construction litigation, insurance disputes and other matters. In 1998, he was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court to the positions of Attorney Trial Referee and Arbitrator/Fact-Finder for the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport.
He is now, or in the past has been, a member of the National Employment Lawyers' Association, Connecticut Employment Lawyers' Association, American Bar Association (Litigation and Labor & Employment Sections), Connecticut Bar Association (Litigation and Labor & Employment Sections), New Haven Bar Association, Milford Bar Association, and Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association.
|Award name||Grantor||Date granted|
|Lead Counsel Rating in Labor & Employment Law||Lead Counsel||2017|
|Principal||Law Offices of Anthony J. Pantuso, III, LLC||2017 - Present|
|Attorney||Hayber Law Firm||2014 - 2017|
|Of Counsel||The Quinn Law Firm, LLC||2011 - 2014|
|Founding Member||The Pantuso Law Firm, LLC||2007 - 2010|
|Partner||Hayber & Pantuso, LLC||2002 - 2007|
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|New Haven County Bar Association||Member||2015 - Present|
|National Employment Lawyers Association||Member||2007 - Present|
|Milford Bar Association||Member||2007 - Present|
|Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association||Member||2007 - Present|
|Connecticut Bar Association, Litigation Section||Member||2000 - Present|
|Connecticut Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section||Executive Comittee||N/A|
|Milford Fine Arts Council||Secretary||2009 - 2011|
|Connecticut Law Tribune||"Big Hammer" Could Pound Companies That Mislabel Workers||2007|
|University of Connecticut School of Law||JD - Juris Doctor||1992|
|Rhodes College||BA - Bachelor of Arts||1986|
|ADA and FMLA -- An Advanced Seminar for Employers||FMLA and ADA Leave||2018|
|Identifying Hidden Wage and Hour Claims||Identifying Hidden Wage and Hour Claims||2016|
|Discovery Strategies in Employment Cases||Effective Use of Written Discovery||2010|
|Eminent Domain and the Fifth Amendment After Kelo||Eminent Domain||2007|
|Avoiding Minefields in Workplace Documentation & Investigations||Common Law exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine||2005|
|Neary v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 518 F.Supp.2d 377 (D.Conn. 2007)||D's Summ Judg denied, collective action certified|
|Vincent v. Intessa Corp.||Settled during trial|
|Gillmore w. Mothers' Work, Inc.||Judgment for Plaintiff|
|Goldstein v. Unilever, Inc., 2004 WL 1098789 (Conn. Super. 2004)||Defendant's Motion to Dismiss denied|
|Shah v. Cover-It, Inc., 86 Conn.App. 71 (2004)||Judgment sustained on appeal|
|Lazor v. Bridgeport Catholic Elementary School System, 2005 WL 1219646 (Conn. Super. 2005)||Defendant's summary judgment motion denied|
|Sancomb v. Mothers Work, Inc.||Settlement|
Posted by Thomas
Wed Jun 20 2018
Posted by Ketty Seide
Sun Apr 29 2018
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.
Years licensed, work experience, education
Peer endorsements, associations, awards
Publications, speaking engagements