Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

Employment Law Defense

employment-lawopens IMAGE file

Every business owner is likely aware of the ever changing rules governing the employer/employee relationship. Our attorneys work with large and small employers in preventing employment-related claims by working on the “front-end” to put in place the proper procedures to prevent issues from arising. But, when claims arise, the employment law attorneys at Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, LLP regularly defend both large and small employers in matters ranging from advice in making day-to-day employment and HR decisions to extensive litigation.

We handle local, state and federal claims in a variety of areas including:

  • Sexual harassment
  • Retaliation
  • Age, race, religion and national origin discrimination
  • Wrongful termination
  • Whistleblower cases
  • ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
  • FLSA claims
  • Wage and hour disputes
  • Non-compete agreements
  • Unemployment compensation

Our employment law practice focuses on preventing employment law claims by providing advice to management and HR as well as training, employment audits and preparation/revision of employment policies and procedures to ensure compliance with local, state and federal laws. We also assist in drafting employment contracts and non-compete agreements.

Our firm also assists employers in responding to investigations by the EEOC, the Florida Human Rights Commission and other agencies charged with enforcement of EEOC laws. We also defend against charges filed by such agencies from the initial charge through the trial and appellate stages.

As most business owners are aware, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified employees who are disabled or perceived to be disabled. A disabled employee must be able to perform the essential functions of their job with or without accommodation. Employers must engage in an interactive process with a qualified employee to determine if a reasonable accommodation can be made for the disabled employee to allow him or her to perform the essential functions of the job unless the accommodation is unduly burdensome to the employer.

We have experience in assisting employers identify whether an employee is “qualified” under the act and whether a reasonable accommodation can be made that is not unduly burdensome. Our attorneys often help guide employers through the interactive process to insure compliance with the ADA to avoid litigation and to defend against allegations of disability discrimination including failure to hire or promote, adverse discipline, termination and constructive discharge.

For more information, please contact Joe Mueller at (727) 821-2080.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Windstorm loss — Notice of loss — Timeliness — Prejudice to insurer — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured failed to overcome presumption that insurer was prejudiced by his failure to timely report claim for hurricane damage — Insured failed to act with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time where insured waited two years and seven months to report claim of hurricane damage to his roof — Conclusory affidavits submitted by insured in opposition to summary judgment were insufficient to rebut presumption of prejudice where passage of time rendered insurer unable to determine what current damage was directly attributable to the storm — Court rejects argument that policy was ambiguous because it contained a clause imposing a blanket bar on any hurricane-related claim beyond three-year window and a second clause requiring insured to provide prompt notice of any claim — Clauses, when read together, require an insured to file any hurricane-related claim within three years of the storm, and to act swiftly upon discovering damages
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights
  • Consumer law — Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Costs — Prevailing party — Where partial summary judgment as to liability was granted in favor of plaintiff, but jury awarded no damages, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party on Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim — No error in denying fees and costs under proposals for settlement presented to trial court — None of the proposals proffered satisfied strict requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 where proposals required plaintiff to execute a release but failed to describe release with sufficient detail, contained ambiguity as to punitive damages, and required payment from date of settlement without defining such date — Error to deny request for costs under section 57.041 — A zero judgment constitutes a judgment in favor of the defendant for purposes of recovery of costs under the statute
  • Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Relevance — Appeals — Certiorari — Order requiring defendant’s corporate representative to address areas of inquiry related to defendant’s corporate-wide operations is quashed — Allowing corporate-wide discovery amounted to carte blanche discovery that results in irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of the law — Information is not discoverable based on its relevance to show negligent mode of operation because, under section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory of recovery in slip-and-fall cases
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982