Seyfarth Shaw’s Labor & Employment Practices Recognized in 2010 Edition of Legal 500

Many of Seyfarth Shaw’s Labor and Employment practices are recommended in the 2010 edition of Legal 500 US. Top honors went to Immigration, Labor and Employment Litigation, and Workplace and Employment Counseling, with all maintaining last year’s tier 1 ranking. Labor Management Relations received a tier 2 ranking, and ERISA Litigation, a newcomer this year, received a tier 3 ranking. One client interviewed by Legal 500 commented, “If I were to rank all firms, Seyfarth Shaw would be at the top.”

Seyfarth Shaw’s ERISA Litigation Practice Recognized by Chambers USA

Seyfarth Shaw’s national ERISA Litigation Practice group maintained its band 3 position in the 2010 edition of Chambers USA. Sources told Chambers, “[Seyfarth Shaw is] playing an increasingly prominent role in major matters and winning a lot of work. This is definitely a firm to keep an eye on.” According to the guide, “The group handles a high volume of cases and has particular expertise in representing clients in 401(k) expenses litigation…. The team also handles stock drop cases and matters relating to breach of fiduciary duty.”

Seyfarth Shaw’s Labor & Employment Practices Recognized by Chambers USA

In Chambers USA’s 2010 guide, the firm’s Labor & Employment department once again topped the charts in several regions and practices, maintaining all of the firm’s impressive standings from last year. Nationally, the firm continues to hold its band 2 ranking in Labor & Employment, its band 2 ranking in Retail, and its band 3 ranking in ERISA Litigation. Seyfarth Shaw’s regional offices all held on to their titles from last year, with the firm receiving Labor & Employment distinctions in 6 out of the 7 states in which the firm operates. The Illinois and Massachusetts offices earned band 1 rankings, the California office earned a band 2 ranking, and the Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C. offices all earned band 3 rankings.

Sources told Chambers, “The team combines superior lawyering skills with efficiency and cost-consciousness.” Clients added, “I have never had a problem that they can’t handle,” and that the firm is “extremely costumer-focused, with knowledgeable lawyers in virtually every area; most importantly, they understand how to partner with their clients and deliver results. They provide sound legal judgment that allows your business to achieve its goals.”

Seyfarth Shaw Named One of Law360’s Employment Defense Firms of the Year

Seyfarth Shaw was honored as one of six law firms nationally to be named a management-side employment law firm of the year for 2009.

According to Law360’s January 1, 2010 article, “Employment Defense Firms of the Year,” “2009 was a big year” for labor & employment attorneys.  The article noted that “Seyfarth Shaw… earns a spot on Law360's list of standout management-side employment firms for several big wins in 2009,” and pointed to a few of the firm’s substantial victories on behalf of its clients, including:

• Steven Lerman et al. v. City of Fort Lauderdale in which the article states that “…the Eleventh Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' appeal that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act allowed for claims under the ADEA to survive a voluntarily release form shielding the city from liability under employment discrimination laws…”;
• Hernandez et al. v. Hillsides Inc., in which the California Supreme Court ruled that the firm’s client’s employees at a home for abused children “had not suffered an invasion of privacy when their boss secretly monitored them to catch an employee suspected of looking at pornography on workplace computers…”;
• Vinole et al. v. Countrywide, where “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said a lower court had not abused its discretion by granting Countrywide's preemptive motion to deny class certification before the plaintiffs ever moved to certify…”; and
• United Air Lines Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Association International in which the firm helped to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to uphold a ruling “that a pilots union had violated a collective bargaining agreement by initiating a work slowdown when the airline refused to renegotiate terms.”