Related Practice Areas
Employment Disputes & Non-Competition Agreements
Meissner Tierney's attorneys routinely represent both employers and employees before state and federal administrative agencies and courts on claims of employment discrimination. These cases have involved claims under such laws as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and comparable claims under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.
We have also represented employers in relation to claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and analogous state statutes or local ordinances.
Our attorneys also routinely represent both businesses and individuals—from various professions and industries—in relation to disputes in which a non-competition agreement is at issue. Wisconsin has some very unique statutory and common law in relation to non-compete agreements, and our attorneys are intimately familiar with, and have successfully addresses on behalf of our clients, these often-nuanced issues.
- July 12, 2019
- March 16, 2017
- July 8, 2015
- April 29, 2015
- October 12, 2012
- February 27, 2018
- January 13, 2016
Great Lakes Roofing Corporation v. Ciccarelli, et al., Washington County Circuit Court, Wisconsin (2008)
(Claims of non-compete, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy; defeated summary judgment motion on validity of non-compete and confidentiality provisions; case settled before trial)
Schueler v. Schoenecker, 2017 IL App (1st) 163377-U
Obtained summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice of claims that our client had breached a non-compete agreement. Affirmed on appeal.
Lyman, et al. v. St. Jude Medical, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2005-2008)
A multi-million dollar breach of contract action by our client, an individual sales representative whose contract with a major, national medical device company was summarily and without legitimate cause terminated. The case settled soon after our client obtained a number of very favorable court rulings immediately prior to trial, including a ruling rejecting a Daubert challenge to our client’s damages expert while disqualifying the defendant’s corresponding expert.
Cababa v. St. Francis Anesthesiology, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2003). An anesthesiology group and its officers were sued by a former member of the group for national origin discrimination and retaliation claims. Cohen and his colleagues obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against the defendants and an order for costs. The case established precedent on “stray remarks” as not constituting direct evidence of discrimination and the need for common decision makers to have performed the alleged discriminatory acts.