Case Results

Indianapolis Labor & Employment Lawyers Since 1978

Working Hard for Indiana Employee Rights


Macey Swanson LLP represents employees and their unions in labor and employment, worker's compensation, personal injury, discrimination, and civil rights cases. Experienced in litigation, negotiation and counseling, we are committed to achieving the best results for each client through mediation, settlement or trial. See below for a sample of our legal case results.

#MeToo Workplace Discrimination Win

A federal court in Indiana ruled that plaintiff employee had presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find in her favor on her retaliation claim following workplace harassment on the basis of sex.

#MeToo Workplace Discrimination Win

A federal court in Indiana ruled that plaintiff employee had presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find in her favor on her retaliation claim following workplace harassment on the basis of sex. Brought on behalf of an employee who was terminated shortly after reporting workplace harassment, the case reaffirmed employees’ ability to report workplace harassment without having to fear unlawful retaliation.

Read the full opinion from the court here.

Court Upholds Jury Verdict in First Amendment Case

A federal jury awarded damages to workers who were fired because of their political activity. The jury verdict was affirmed and workers were entitled to damages because of their constitutional deprivations under the First Amendment.

Court Upholds Jury Verdict in First Amendment Case

A federal jury awarded damages to workers who were fired because of their political activity in Anderson, Indiana. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt affirmed the jury verdict for each worker and ruled that the workers were entitled to damages because of their constitutional deprivations under the First Amendment.

Media coverage of the case can be found here.

Jury Should Decide Remonstrator’s Tortious Interference Case

The Court of Appeals ruling that a jury should decide whether a real estate company intentionally induced a law firm to terminate an attorney’s partnership agreement as the result of a dispute over a land agreement is affirmed.

Jury Should Decide Remonstrator’s Tortious Interference Case

The Indiana Supreme Court summarily affirmed a Court of Appeals ruling that a jury should decide whether a real estate company intentionally induced a law firm to terminate an attorney’s partnership agreement as the result of a dispute over a land agreement. The Supreme Court order reinstated the Court of Appeals ruling and remanded the case to Hamilton Superior Court.

Read the full reinstated opinion from the Court of Appeals here.

Jury Should Hear Salesperson’s Age Discrimination Case

Case reaffirms that age discrimination lawsuits should proceed to a jury when the plaintiff employee puts forth ample evidence of suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, and pretext.

Jury Should Hear Salesperson’s Age Discrimination Case

The Seventh Circuit held that a salesperson presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in his favor regarding his claim of age discrimination. Brought on behalf of a fire truck salesperson who had received multiple “salesman of the year” awards, the case reaffirmed that age discrimination lawsuits should proceed to a jury when the plaintiff employee puts forth ample evidence of suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, and pretext.

Media coverage of the case can be found here.

Important Religious Accommodation Win

Case reaffirms several important principles of employer’s religious accommodation requirements under federal law.

Important Religious Accommodation Win

The Seventh Circuit decided that the plaintiff employee had presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in his favor regarding his claim of religious discrimination. Brought on behalf of a Nigerian immigrant who sought time off to perform rites at his father’s funeral, the case reaffirmed several important principles of employer’s religious accommodation requirements under federal law.

Media coverage of the case can be found here.

Pregnancy Discrimination Case Against Bank Should Be Tried

Case reaffirms employer obligations to hold pregnant employees to the same performance standards as other employees and not use the pregnancy as a negative factor in employment decisions.

Pregnancy Discrimination Case Against Bank Should Be Tried

A federal court ruled that a business banker’s pregnancy claim against a major bank should be decided by a jury. Brought on behalf of an employee who was terminated shortly after announcing her pregnancy, this case reaffirms employer obligations to hold pregnant employees to the same performance standards as other employees and not use the pregnancy as a negative factor in employment decisions.

Read the full opinion from the court here.

Read the Latest in Legal News From Macey Swanson

Read More

Meet the Macey Swanson Legal Team

Tireless Advocates for Workers & Their Families

Read More

Call us at 317.637.2345 for a consultation.