Disclaimer: past results never guarantee a similar result in any other case.
Employment & Civil Rights
RA and EEOC vs. HSC
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. served as co-counsel to represent RA as the lead plaintiff in a Federal Court Class-Action lawsuit. EEOC lawyers represented a class of current and former Hispanic HSC employees. The plaintiffs asserted claims of National Origin discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation. Roughly one hundred depositions were taken during the litigation, and following extensive mediation negotiations, a settlement of $1.25 million was achieved prior to trial.
AS v ER
After a five-day trial against a multinational medical corporation, on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for Discriminatory Discipline and Termination, Failure to Accommodate, Hostile Working Environment, and Retaliation, Mr. McCurdy obtained a total payment for his client of more than $800,000.
CJM v ER
Mr. McCurdy represented a former employee of a multinational telecommunications corporation on claims of Race (Hispanic) and National Origin Discrimination, along with Retaliation, under Title VII and 42 USC 1981. Following several key depositions, Mr. McCurdy’s client received total compensation of $575,000.
Jane Doe v ER
Mr. McCurdy’s client asserted two claims for Assault & Battery, and two claims for Sexual Harassment, along with claims for False Imprisonment and Retaliation. After numerous depositions, Mr. McCurdy achieved a half-million dollars in total compensation for his client.
EEOC and WC vs. Honey Baked Ham Company
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. and the U.S. EEOC represented female employees claiming sexual harassment by a supervisor and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. They settled their claims with the Original HoneyBaked Ham Company of Georgia Inc. for $370,000, representing back pay and compensatory damages for 21 female victims.
Pasmore vs. Farm Credit Council Services, et al.
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Mr. Pasmore against his former employer and supervisors for age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The U.S. District Court action settled after the primary depositions for nearly $300,000.
JT and EEOC vs. HD
JT was employed as a Sales Associate with HD, but was passed over and denied promotional opportunities. Less qualified Caucasian co-workers with less tenure were promoted, in lieu of JT. Superiors and co-workers at HD subjected JT to derogatory National Origin workplace comments. JT was also assigned more onerous work responsibilities than Caucasian co-workers. JT complained several times to HD management about workplace discrimination and National Origin hostile work environment. JT also complained to HD management about a Sex-based hostile work environment incident that he witnessed at the store. Despite JT’s numerous complaints to management and to a member of HD’s Board of Directors, the workplace discrimination and National Origin hostile work environment continued. JT also complained to HD management several times regarding the Sex-based harassment incident. HD did nothing to address any of JT’s complaints. Shortly after JT spoke to HD managers regarding his earlier complaint of Sex-based hostile work environment, he was terminated for false reasons. JT hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and brought suit against HD in the United States District Court. The EEOC intervened in JT’s lawsuit and asserted claims of Sex-based and National Origin discrimination and Retaliation on behalf of an entire class of current and former HD employees. The parties agreed to mediate the claims. McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. worked closely with the EEOC attorneys to amicably arrive at a multi-million dollar global settlement for JT and the EEOC class members. Following extensive mediation negotiations, JT received $250,000 in settlement of his claims.
Bachman vs. SupportSoft, Inc.
Mr. Bachman was a Professional Services Architect at SupportSoft, Inc., a high-tech firm in Silicon Valley. During his employment, one of Mr. Bachman’s supervisors told him, “the fast pace of a start-up company may be too much for someone like you. Why don’t you find something more stable…so you can slow down?” Mr. Bachman was not offered necessary training, and when his performance was criticized he was never offered a Performance Improvement Plan. Mr. Bachman’s last performance evaluation indicated that he met the expectations of the company, but soon thereafter, Mr. Bachman’s new, young supervisor told him that his work performance was “unacceptable”, SupportSoft was moving in “a new direction”, and consequently Mr. Bachman’s employment at SupportSoft was terminated. McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. represented Mr. Bachman in a seven-day Arbitration on a single claim for Age Discrimination. Mr. Bachman prevailed in the Arbitration, and the total award against SupportSoft, Inc. amounted to over $244,000.
Latin v. Bellio Trucking, Inc.
A U.S. District Judge entered a $225,000 judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Mr. Eichstadt won this case during a week-long jury trial. In its verdict, the jury had awarded Ms. Latin economic, compensatory and punitive damages on her Title VII sex/gender based hostile work environment and state law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims.
Welder vs. Applebee’s
Mrs. Welder worked full-time in the evenings at Applebee’s to earn extra income to take her family on a vacation to Disney World. At the time, she was a volunteer during the day at Nativity of Our Lord, Catholic School. From her first days on the job, and continuing throughout her employment at Applebee’s, two of Mrs. Welder’s co workers sexually harassed the female employees. Unlike other, much younger, female employees, Mrs. Welder protested this treatment and attempted to defend herself (and the young girls) against the unlawful harassment from these men. These men then began to target Mrs. Welder specifically for harassment, repeatedly calling her names and intimidating her. Although Mrs. Welder complained daily to management of this unlawful behavior, Applebee’s failed to protect her. Mrs. Welder was eventually shoved into a table by one of these men, and later he broke a glass mug and held it to her face. During the jury trial in Federal Court, Mrs. Welder described their behavior as a “pack of wolves surrounding an injured prey”. The firm tried the case for a full week, receiving a jury verdict for Mrs. Welder against Applebee’s, resulting in an award of almost $200,000.
Kerchner vs. ITSA, L.P.
Ms. Kerchner worked for ITSA as a Courtesy Officer (Security Night Manager) in Aurora, Colorado, making $7.00 per hour. On Ms. Kerchner’s first day at ITSA, she met a maintenance worker named Armando, who rubbed her arm on several occasions as he passed her, and winked at her. Ms. Kerchner was offended by this sexually suggestive behavior and the next day she complained to her supervisor. Her supervisor replied, “Armando is just a friendly guy.” Ms. Kerchner replied, “friendly doesn’t excuse it; and if I don’t want that then I shouldn’t have to deal with that.” But her supervisor told Ms. Kerchner to just “deal with it”. The sexual harassment continued, and Ms. Kerchner continued to complain to her supervisor each time, but the company failed to protect Ms. Kerchner. Predictably, Armando cornered Ms. Kerchner in an empty room and attempted to rape her. Ms. Kerchner managed to escape, and shortly thereafter Armando was arrested for attempted strong-arm rape. Remarkably, after the attempted rape, Ms. Kerchner was told that she must return to residing on the premises of ITSA or she would be terminated. Ms. Kerchner could not continue to live on the premises with Armando’s friends still living there, so she quit. Ms. Kerchner hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. and asserted claims under Title VII for Sex Discrimination (Sexual Harassment), Discrimination and Harassment under the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act (CADA), Sexual Assault and Battery, Outrageous Conduct, Negligent Supervision, and Negligent Retention, which allow economic, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case soon went to private Mediation, where it was completely resolved to Ms. Kerchner’s full satisfaction.
Neal vs. The Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Ms. Neal against CACI. Ms. Neal worked at CACI as the Executive Assistant to Robert Schwartz, who was then CACI’s Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer. Ms. Neal alleged, among other things, that Schwartz slapped her on the butt, repeatedly and publicly humiliated her, informed others that she was “loose” and a “lush”, kissed her against her will, and pushed her up against the wall in his office at CACI and groped her body while attempting to kiss her. Ms. Neal complained to CACI’s Human Resources Director and CACI’s CEO, Sam Cassidy, the former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado. Jeffrey Johnson, CACI’s legal counsel and Chair-Elect to CACI’s Board of Directors, hired an attorney at his own law firm, Holland & Hart, to conduct the investigation. This purported investigation concluded that this was a “he said, she said” matter, and as a result, Ms. Neal alleged that CACI failed to take any appropriate corrective or remedial action in response to her complaints of sexual harassment. During the litigation, a former employee of CACI that tried to protect Ms. Neal from Schwartz was deposed. When examined about his pre-deposition communications, he admitted that on the afternoon prior to his deposition, the Colorado Senate Minority Leader summoned him to his office and requested that he “speak nicely” about Schwartz, knowing that the witness’ deposition had been noticed in this case. Based on this revelation, Mr. McCurdy took the deposition of the Senator. The Senator testified that he had met with this former CACI employee at the request of Schwartz, that he had attended a strategy session with Schwartz and his attorney, that he actively solicited CACI’s PAC, and that he was considered a sure vote for CACI on most every issue in the legislature. The Senator also admitted that he had looked into how he would go about obtaining this witness’ current personnel file at his current job. Upon further investigation, Mr. McCurdy learned that the week following the Senator’s meeting with this former employee, the Senator had contacted the Colorado Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel (regarding obtaining this former employee’s personnel file at his new job), and the Chief Counsel had contacted a state agency and requested a copy of the employee’s resume, without a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request. It was learned that a former State Senator working at the agency had faxed a copy of the employee’s resume to the Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel. McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., on behalf of Ms. Neal, asserted federal claims against CACI for numerous violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including claims for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. They also asserted state law claims against CACI for negligent supervision and outrageous conduct. Mr. McCurdy subpoenaed both the State Senator and the Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel to testify under oath at trial, along with many other important witnesses. The 5-7 day jury trial was vacated when settlement was reached on the last business day before trial. Ms. Neal refused to agree to any form of confidentiality, even though she was offered additional monetary compensation to keep the terms of settlement confidential. The case settled for $170,000.
PG and AG v. IOS, Inc.
PG and AG brought claims against their former and current employer for substantial unpaid overtime and uncompensated lunch periods which they were required to work off the clock. McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. brought federal and state claims against IOS, Inc. in the U.S. District Court under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA). After initial depositions conducted by Mr. Eichstadt, the case settled to the full and complete satisfaction of the McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. clients.
Harrison vs. CareSelect Heart Group, et al.
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Ms. Harrison against her former employer and several of the doctors and administrators who owned and worked for the company. Ms. Harrison alleged pregnancy discrimination under Title VII. The U.S. District Court action settled for a six-digit figure the week prior to the physicians’ depositions.
Budden vs. LM
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Ms. Budden after she was terminated from LM one day after returning from maternity leave. Ms. Budden had taken leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) for the birth and care of her child. After engaging in substantial efforts to settle the matter prior to litigation, to no avail, the firm brought suit on behalf of Ms. Budden in U.S. District Court. Before an answer was ever filed, LM settled the lawsuit for $70,000.
Lawrence vs. Coors
Ms. Lawrence’s employment was terminated by Coors after 16 years of service. Ms. Lawrence retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., to pursue claims for discrimination and retaliation, in addition to several state tort and contract claims. After demand and negotiations, all claims were settled to Ms. Lawrence’s satisfaction.
Jenkins vs. Qwest
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Ms. Jenkins, an employee of Qwest, in U.S. District Court on claims of discrimination and retaliation based upon pregnancy and FMLA status. Following numerous depositions conducted by Mr. McCurdy, the case settled to the satisfaction of Ms. Jenkins.
Baker vs. AT&T
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Ms. Baker against her former employer, AT&T, on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case settled after consideration by the EEOC, to the complete satisfaction of Ms. Baker.
TD vs. AT, Inc.
Ms. D began working for AT at a local Mall as a Senior Assistant, with more than seven years of retail experience and more than two years of management experience. After only six weeks, Ms. D received a raise and was promoted to Store Manager, supervising up to 20 employees. In that role, Ms. D received a good overall performance rating from her District Manager. However, when she informed her District Manager that she was pregnant and inquired as to procedures for leave of absence for maternity, she was reprimanded for poor performance. She was asked to either step down from her Store Manager position or resign from the company. Her District Manager asked her, “doesn’t your husband have a job…won’t his medical insurance cover you?” When Ms. D spoke to Human Resources at AT, she was offered a severance package for one-month pay and benefits if she agreed to resign and waive all of her claims. HR told her that one-month of pay is all AT would offer because she was going to be terminated anyway without any severance pay. Ms. D then retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. Mr. McCurdy contacted AT’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources and filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination. HR at AT then contacted Ms. D and asked if she was going to sign the severance agreement. When Ms. D told HR that she had retained legal counsel, HR then told Ms. D that she was fired. Ms. D alleged Pregnancy Discrimination under the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act (CADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Retaliation under Title VII, with the EEOC. All of Ms. D’s claims were settled in Mediation at the EEOC for an undisclosed amount, and Ms. D is very well-pleased.
Sara D. vs. MD, Inc. and OA, Inc.
Ms. D was the Director of Marketing for a wholly-owned subsidiary of a large Japanese multi-national conglomerate. Ms. D made an important presentation at a sales meeting, and afterwards the CEO of the conglomerate told her that she had “done good job”. The next week, however, this CEO directed the President of the subsidiary to terminate Ms. D’s employment. Ms. D alleged that he did not want a strong female in such a high position. The President refused, saying that Ms. D was “the most integral person to the success of sales and marketing” at the company. So the President hired an independent, outside consulting firm to evaluate Ms. D’s marketing and research strategies, and Ms. D’s Marketing Plan was approved. Nonetheless, the Japanese CEO attended the next Board Meeting and screamed at Ms. D for over an hour while slamming his fists on the table and throwing papers in the air. Ms. D alleged that the CEO then planted a “spy” in the subsidiary as a Receptionist, to monitor Ms. D’s behavior. Ms. D filed a complaint with HR, and numerous e-mails were found between the Receptionist and the Japanese CEO. Since he refused to fire Ms. D, the President was terminated, and the CEO took control of the subsidiary. Ms. D was then passed-over for a Vice-President position at the company, for which she was fully qualified, and a less-qualified male employee was given the position. Ms. D was told that her opinions did not matter, and then Ms. D was fired. She hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., and her claims for Sex Discrimination and Retaliation were filed with the EEOC. The case went into Mediation at the EEOC, and settled for an undisclosed amount to the full and complete satisfaction of Ms. D.
Sobczak vs. Spring Communication, Inc.
Sobczak joined the Army Reserves in September 2002, after 9-11. He began working for Spring Communication (Spring) in December 2003, and was eventually promoted to Branch Manager, where he broke store records for performance. Sobczak continued drills with the Army Reserves, but requested a change to Space Command, which required a transfer to the Colorado Army National Guard. In August 2007, Sobczak re-enlisted in the Colorado Army National Guard, and was ordered to depart in November for nearly six months of training. When Sobczak informed Spring that he required a leave of absence to fulfill his military obligations, Spring transferred him to a kiosk with a reduced salary. Sobczak retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, PC. Mr. McCurdy required no fee or compensation from Sobczak, and asserted claims against Spring based on the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). Prior to litigation, Spring settled the claims for the full relief requested, including reinstatement of Sobczak to his prior position at his prior rate of compensation, plus payment for all lost wages and benefits. Spring also paid Mr. McCurdy’s legal fees in their entirety.
Harden vs. TC
Ms. Harden worked at TC as a Health Care Technician. A male co-worker repeatedly made unwelcomed romantic advances toward her at work, which she repeatedly refused. The co-worker then became violent, cursing and kicking at Ms. Harden. When Ms. Harden complained to TC, she was told to work it out with the co-worker. Predictably, the confrontations became more violent, until Ms. Harden was physically attacked by the male co-worker. When she complained again, and TC refused to terminate the co-worker’s employment, Ms. Harden left the building to call the police. When she returned to work, she was disciplined for leaving work without permission. Ms. Harden immediately quit, and retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. After filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and litigating for over a year in U.S. District Court, the firm settled the case with TC to the complete satisfaction of Ms. Harden.
BL vs. UR
BL had been an exemplary employee of a Denver company for many years. UR, a national company, acquired BL’s local employer in Denver. Shortly thereafter (and over a period of more than a year), BL’s job was restructured. As a result, BL was required to perform significant additional responsibilities (for which he received no additional pay). UR then eliminated BL’s position. To avoid termination, BL was forced to apply internally for another position, which he received. BL worked in the new position for less than a year before UR terminated him. BL hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., filed a Charge of Age Discrimination with the EEOC, and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court. UR asserted BL’s positions were eliminated in a lawful Reduction in Force. However, discovery revealed significantly younger employees (who kept their jobs) continued to perform BL’s responsibilities following his termination. After discovery concluded in the lawsuit, UR moved for summary judgment dismissal of BL’s claims, which was opposed and briefed by Mr. Eichstadt. The Court denied UR’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit, and UR then agreed to pay a sum satisfactory to settle BL’s claims.
CT vs. Q, Inc.
Ms. T worked at Q as a Project Manager, but her working environment was charged with vulgarity and hostility. Although Ms. T’s most recent performance evaluation rated her in most every category as “consistently exceeds expectations”, her immediate supervisor singled-out Ms. T with intense hostility and disparate treatment. Her supervisor instituted weekly meetings between himself and Ms. T, where he would often make her cry by berating and verbally abusing her. During one of these weekly meetings, her supervisor told her words to the effect that he was going to continue to ride her until she breaks. Ms. T complained to the Human Resources Director that she was being cursed at on a daily basis and sexual comments permeated the office, but the company conducted no investigation into her complaints. Two days after she complained, Ms. T’s employment was terminated. Ms. T hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. and filed claims in the U.S. District Court against Q for Title VII Discrimination (Hostile Work Environment), Title VII Retaliation, Negligent Misrepresentation Causing Financial Loss, and Promissory Estoppel. She also filed claims against the HR Director personally for Negligent Misrepresentation Causing Financial Loss. After many months of litigation, including several depositions taken by Mr. McCurdy, and the forensic analysis of laptop computer hard drives of key company personnel, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount, to the complete satisfaction of Ms. T.
Morris vs. PMC, Inc.
Ms. Morris worked at PMC as a Clinical Therapist for nine years. For the last seven years she was forced to work with a male co-worker who repeatedly engaged in harassing and intimidating workplace conduct toward her, which included physically violent behavior and degrading physical contacts. Although Ms. Morris repeatedly complained about this treatment, she was told to not worry about it. When she continued to complain, she was threatened with the termination of her employment. When Ms. Morris begged for help and told her supervisors that she was afraid of this co-worker, the company told her that if she keeps complaining then the co-worker could lose his job, and “do you want him to come after you and put a bullet in your head?” PMC then gave Ms. Morris a written warning, which she refused to sign, and PMC transferred her. But under those conditions Ms. Morris could not return to work at PMC, and she quit. Ms. Morris retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. and filed claims against PMC in the U.S. District Court for Title VII Discrimination (Sexual Harassment Hostile Work Environment), Title VII Retaliation, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Supervision and Retention, Breach of Implied Contract, and Breach of the Express Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. After many months of litigation, PMC settled the case for an undisclosed amount, to the complete satisfaction of Ms. Morris.
JD vs. CSH, Inc., et al.
JD was a 27-year old female who began working for CSH, Inc. as a Server earning $4.00 per hour, plus tips. CSH, Inc. employed a Dishwasher named Jerry, who appeared to be in his mid-40s. Jerry made several extremely crude sexual advances on JD at CSH, Inc., and when she refused his advances, Jerry told her, “you owe me… either way, you’re going to pay”. JD was quite shaken and complained to her supervisors at CSH, Inc., who did nothing. Jerry then sexually assaulted and battered JD at work. JD again complained to her supervisors, but their response was to laugh and tell her to “just deal with it”. Jerry then brought a weapon to work, offered JD money for sex, and threatened JD when she refused. When JD complained again to management and nothing was done, JD walked out, filed a police complaint, and hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. Mr. McCurdy filed claims with the EEOC on behalf of JD under CADA and Title VII, along with claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime, Sexual Assault and Battery, and Negligent Supervision and Negligent Retention. JD’s charges settled promptly in EEOC Mediation.
Shultz vs. GC, Inc.
Mr. Shultz began working for GC and applied for their “fast-track management-training program” (FMP). Although Mr. Schultz was informed that he would be paid as an hourly employee until the six-month FMP was completed, he was actually classified as an exempt salaried employee and was not paid any overtime for the hours he worked in excess of forty (40) per week. Mr. Shultz worked well over 40 hours in a workweek on most occasions. And Mr. Schultz was never allowed to begin the FMP. Although his performance was good, Mr. Shultz was fired after he complained of the broken promises and unfair pay. Mr. Schultz hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. and filed state law claims in the District Court for the City and County of Denver for Willful and Wanton Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Implied Contract, violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Negligent Misrepresentation Causing Financial Loss. After months of litigation, the case was resolved to the complete satisfaction of Mr. Shultz, for an undisclosed amount.
PL vs. SGA, Inc.
PL is female, and she was over 40-years of age and earned $100,000 per year at SGA. Male employees and those under 40 regularly received “overrides”, while PL never received equal pay. Also, after seven months at SGA, PL suffered a serious brain aneurysm while at work. When she returned, SGA converted her from a salaried employee to an hourly employee, and cut her hours, while male employees and those under 40 received raises. Then SGA ceased paying PL’s group medical benefits, and when she applied for an individual policy, due to her serious pre-existing medical condition, she was denied insurance. Shortly thereafter, SGA laid-off PL, along with another female employee over 40, due to a “bad economy”. PL retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., and with claims against SGA under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), SGA immediately provided PL with $21,100.00 to compensate her for the emotional distress it caused.
DL & LP vs. BM, Inc.
DL was born and raised in Denver, Colorado, graduated from a Denver High School, and attended a local Community College to study plumbing. He then worked for over 10 years in the plumbing industry, before he received his Journeyman Plumber’s License from the State of Colorado. After significant additional experience, DL began working for BM, Inc. as a Journeyman Plumber. LP worked for 10 years in the plumbing industry, before he began working for BM, Inc. as an Apprentice Plumber. Both DL & LP are of Hispanic national origin, and from the inception, their immediate supervisor at BM, Inc. exhibited racial bias against them, with pervasive derogatory comments and menial job assignments. When DL & LP complained to management, BM, Inc. took no action to stop the insidious racial harassment. DL & LP then began to suffer retaliation, and they were eventually discharged. DL & LP retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., who brought claims against BM, Inc. under Title VII and CADA for race discrimination and hostile work environment; racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1981; and for retaliation under Title VII. DL and LP’s claims were promptly settled.
Meisinger vs. SLLO
Ms. Meisinger worked as a Collector at a law firm. On her first day working, a co-worker told her to drop her pants, and later that day he told her that it was because of the size of her breasts that she was hired so quickly. She was very afraid of this co-worker, and began taking measures to avoid him. Ms. Meisinger complained to Management, but was told that she would have to work with a lot of males so she would just have to get used to it. Her employment was then terminated. She was told that according to the company’s Policy Manual, she is on a 90-day probationary period, and since Colorado is an employment at-will state the company does not need to have a reason to terminate her. Ms. Meisinger then hired McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. and filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC for Retaliation. Ms. Meisinger’s claims were soon resolved to her complete satisfaction.
Cummings vs. SHCA
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Ms. Cummings against her former employer, SHCA, on allegations of pregnancy discrimination. The case was settled while pending at the EEOC, to the complete satisfaction of Ms. Cummings.
Smith vs. FMR
Ms. Smith worked as a waitress at FMR, where she alleges she was subjected to a sexual assault, repeated sexual abuse, a hostile working environment, and then terminated in retaliation for not conceding to sexual requests. McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Ms. Smith in settling the case prior to litigation to Ms. Smith’s complete satisfaction.
Other Civil Litigation
Sagar vs. Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc.
Mr. Sagar is a business owner who lives in Southern California, in the immediate area surrounding the Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) and the Anaheim Convention Center (ACC). Mr. Sagar had an idea to purchase a Maui Wowi franchise and place his own Maui Wowi kiosks in the LACC and the ACC. Mr. Sagar contacted Maui Wowi, explained his plans, and purchased a Maui Wowi franchise. Mr. Sagar paid a substantial franchise fee to Maui Wowi, and an additional fee for exclusive use of the LACC and ACC locations. But Mr. Sagar never received a contract to open his business in these locations. After a year, Mr. Sagar was finally allowed to meet with the LACC and ACC concessionaire. But when it came time to sign a contract for the LACC and ACC, Maui Wowi arranged for another franchisee to obtain the contract. Mr. Sagar retained McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C. to represent him in this business dispute. According to the Franchise Agreement, Mr. Sagar had to arbitrate his claims, so he filed an Arbitration action for breach of the Franchise Agreement. Key depositions were taken in Los Angeles, experts were retained, and the dispute was arbitrated. The Arbitration hearing lasted for several days, and at the conclusion Mr. Sagar was awarded a total of nearly $72,000.
Computer Workstations, Inc. vs. Francis, Hawkes, and Advance Ware, Inc.
Computer Workstations, Inc. filed suit against Advance Ware, Inc., its principal, and an employee, alleging unfair competition, breach of contracts, interference with contracts, and trade secret violations. Mr. McCurdy was General Counsel for Advance Ware, Inc., and successfully defended the suit to settlement benefiting Advance Ware, Inc.
Kyle Systems, Inc. vs. Townsend, Dewberry and ARCO Mechanical, Inc.
Kyle Systems, Inc., filed suit against ARCO Mechanical and its principals personally alleging unfair competition, breach of contracts, interference with contracts, and trade secret violations. Messrs. McCurdy and Eichstadt co-counseled the litigation and successfully defended ARCO and its principals from a preliminary injunction. The case settled to the benefit of ARCO and its principals shortly thereafter.
Holiday vs. Drs. L & S
McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., represented Mr. Holiday, a citizen of the United Kingdom, against the physicians who performed surgery on him in Colorado. Shortly before trial, one physician settled with Mr. Holiday for an undisclosed amount; claims against the other physician were tried to the satisfaction of Mr. Holiday.
Pogossova vs. Chevalier
Ms. Pogossova was rear-ended by a large van going approximately 40 mph while she was parked along the side of the road. She was thrust into the steering wheel and front windshield, breaking her nose and knocking her unconscious. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital. After retaining McCurdy & Eichstadt, P.C., Ms. Pogossova’s claims were settled prior to litigation to her satisfaction.
USAA Insurance Company vs. Car Carrier
USAA filed suit against the Car Carrier, as subrogor, for damage to a vehicle being transported across the country. The vehicle was riding atop a semi-truck trailer, when it struck a low overpass at a high rate of speed. Mr. McCurdy defended the Car Carrier, and after a full-day trial, USAA dismissed its own case with prejudice.