Chicago, IL
Immigration Lawyer at Chicago, IL
Practice Areas: Immigration, Discrimination, Wrongful Termination
OUTCOME: Jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Title VII retaliation case. Employee with a history of EEO complaints against a supervisor was fired for "poor performance" despite performing as well his peers.
OUTCOME: District court reversed.
Appeal of the district court decision that Vaughn Hospitality, the management company for Hotel Coleman, was not liable as an employer under Title VII or the IHRA.
OUTCOME: After a two-day trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against Vaughn Hospitality.
Sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation case against employer Hotel Coleman and hotel management company, Vaughn Hospitality. Mike Vaughn, owner of Vaughn Hospitality and vario ... us other businesses in the Chicago suburbs, was hired by Michael Coleman, owner of Holiday Inn Express franchise in Algonquin, IL. Plaintiff, alleging that Mike Vaughn sexually harassed and discriminated against her, filed a charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights while on maternity leave. One week after returning from pregnancy leave plaintiff was terminated by Jennifer Vaughn, manager at the hotel and daughter of Mike Vaughn. Summary Judgment against Hotel Coleman was granted in full. Plaintiff was allowed to proceed against Vaughn Hospitality for retaliation.
OUTCOME: Setted
MSPB reprisal case. Client was removed by supervisor with a history of reprisal. Agency settled before the hearing and client is back to work.
OUTCOME: Settled
Sexual harassment case. Client was subjected to multiple instances of harassment by co-workers and supervisors. Agency took no action against the harassers and threatened client.
OUTCOME: Both cases setted
Represented two federal police officers in racial discrimination claims against their former chief of police.
OUTCOME: The USCIS approved the naturalization application.
Permanent resident whose petitioning spouse passed away filed for citizenship. The USCIS challenged him about the validity of the original marriage and did not make a decision on the case. More than 12 ... 0 days passed so we filed a 1447(b) action in federal court. The USCIS subsequently denied the naturalization application based on the fact that he was working for the government outside of the US for much of the time after his naturalization interview and because he filed 1 day too early. The AUSA filed a motion to dismiss. In response we argued that the USCIS did not have jurisdiction over the matter after the 1447(b) action was filed, the delay caused by the USCIS should not be used against the petitioner, and that he filed on time (3 months vs. 90 days). The judge agreed that the USCIS lost jurisdiction after the 1447(b) action was filed, frowned upon the reasons for the denial, and remanded the matter back to the USCIS for a prompt decision.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
