|VA||Authorized to practice law||2002||02/13/2017|
|Award name||Grantor||Date granted|
|Super Lawyer||Super Lawyers||2013|
|Los Angeles Daily Journal and San Francisco Daily Journal||Is Bullying in the Workplace Illegal?||2013|
|Health are Fraud Journal||Health Care Law Expands False Claims Act LIability under Anti-Kickback Statute||2012|
|California Lawyer||Blowing the Whistle||2011|
|Maryland State Bar Association Fall Newsletter||Grim Consequences for Spoliation of Evidence||2010|
|Fordham University||Law||JD - Juris Doctor||1993|
|Cornell University||N/A||BS - Bachelor of Science||1989|
|Changing Currents in Employment Law||Social Media and Employment Law: Risks to Employees and Employrs||2012|
|ABA 6th Annual Labor and Employment law Conference||You Put What on Your Facebook Page?!: The ARray of Thorny Employment Issues Posed by Social Networking and the Internet||2012|
|Maryland Employment Lawyers Association||’You Put What on your Facebook Page….’ – The Array of Thorny Employment Law Issues Posed by Social Networking and the Internet||2011|
|Metropolitan Employment Lawyers Association CLE||Litigating Successfully under the Equal Pay Act. Lessons Learned from Murtagh-Cooke v. NTSB||2009|
|The Economics of Electronic Discovery||E-discovery||2008|
Posted by anonymous
In 2010 I notified my management that I had discovered a violation of federal regulation. Rather than correct the non-compliance my company retaliated against me (harassment and diminished responsibilities). I then recruited TELG and Scher. From the contractual inception, I was told that it would be a long litigious process. No mention of the potential cost in legal fees or duration was provided, but the ultimate objective was to file a complaint with the DOL culminating in a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. To get to that point, I endured a slow motion choreography extracting chunks of financial resources at each juncture. Two years into this process, and borrowing from home equity/retirement, I advised Scher that I was continually being harassed in the workplace. He responded on numerous occasions that it would be best if I simply quit. I knew that I would be sacrificing a huge amount of leverage and I also surmised that my employer was not about to terminate me while litigation was pending something Scher never proffered, a reassurance even his legal aid shared with me. Later into this process my employer, during discovery, dumped a staggering number of documents. Most had little relevance to case, but I informed Scher that surreptitiously two separate audits were performed which were not included in the discovery dump. Both audits served to corroborate my initial complaint, but more importantly both required corrective action and notification of the findings to the government. Neither of these audits was ever presented to the court because as Scher argued, “It is not necessary to prove that the complaint was valid only that you believed sincerely in stating my complaint.” It's true if such evidence did not exist, but why was this exculpatory evidence excluded if available? He later said the audits were examples of "self-reporting" even though both were subsequent to my complaint. In 2013 the DOL put my case on their docket with hearing in a DOL court room. Respondent made an 11th hour appeal to postpone case. I advised my attorney that I waited three years; I wasn’t about to wait for an undetermined period for a new date. Shortly before trial I was told by Scher that ALJ postponed due to “mutual agreement.” Having no explanation I contacted the ALJ’s clerk directly. I was forwarded a request for postponement issued by employer’s attorney and agreed to by Scher; a transaction I was not informed of nor consented to. The case was rescheduled for March 2014. One month before trial Scher advised that my company wanted to “depose me again.” Because he was traveling at my expense he would depose an additional material witness the company wanted to introduce. I adamantly refused to be re-deposed. Eventually the witness was deposed via teleconference. Despite the theatrics the company would never call this witness during the hearing. In hearing, despite being suspicious, I believed I had no alternative but to abide by Scher’s strategy. Several things just didn’t look right. The company’s key witness was allowed to sit at the respondent’s counsel table with the company attorneys. This same witness was called to testify after my testimony. Perhaps most detrimental, my attorney called this witness and all of the company’s witnesses to the witness stand (direct examined first). His strategy consisted of allowing company witnesses to reveal their unbridled animosity toward me. Irrespective of the technical merits of Scher's “animus ploy” it provided the company the opportunity to introduce (during cross) testimony unchallenged. Post hearing, I notified state PE board that an expert witness (company) gave false and erroneous technical testimony. Same company attorney retorted that he wasn’t an “expert witness” since Scher called him to testify! Now if the opposition considered this person Scher’s witness why would Scher have his witness testify against his client, if he wanted to win?
Posted by anonymous
My firm was experiencing a major expense reduction and my position was to be eliminated. There was a meaningful discrepancy between what I believed the firm's obligations were to me and the firm believed their obligations to be relative to severance. I initially engaged with Scott Oswald as he reviewed the merits of my position. Subsequently, David Scher assumed responsibility for advising me and interfacing with the firm. The dynamics of the conversation changed immediately upon Dave's involvement and we had full resolution on primary terms within three weeks. Both attorneys were professional, knowledgable, responsive and very effective in a negotiation environment.
Posted by anonymous
I highly recommend David Scher and The Employment Law Group (TELG) for labor and employment matters.
From the outset, he served my interests in a very timely, professional and knowledgeable manner. David is always prepared for opposing counsel's next move. Working with Scott Oswald, the two are a formidable team that protects their clients interests, along with strong involvement and support of the firm.
David's skilled handling of my case and cool head led to an out of court settlement early in the litigation, enabling me to save tens of thousands of dollars in upfront costs and possibly two years of litigation and appeals.
He along with the team at TELG are to be commended for their commitment to professionalism and protection of the rights of the everyman and the everywoman, who find themselves facing discrimination and retaliation, or other unlawful acts, by employers who believe they can violate the law with impunity.
David and TELG prove them wrong!
Endorsements from fellow lawyers are an important consideration for many when selecting the right attorney. Be the first to endorse your colleague!