Macey Swanson Hicks & Sauer represents employees and their Unions in labor and employment, wage theft/wage and hour, 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.
A federal district court dismissed an employer’s human resources manager’s lawsuit against a union after the employer terminated the human resources manager.
A federal district court dismissed an employer’s human resources manager’s lawsuit against a union after the employer terminated the human resources manager alleging that the union was her “joint employer” for purposes of federal discrimination law, and that the union tortiously interfered with her contract in violation of state law. The district court ruled that that the union was not the human resources manager’s employer as a matter of law because it exercised no control over her, had no authority to hire or fire her, promulgated no work rules or conditions of her employment, and issued no work assignments to her. The district court also ruled that the state law claim was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, which has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that a union coerced an employer with respect to the selection of its representative.
Click here to read the court’s full opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case reaffirms several important principles of employer’s religious accommodation requirements under federal law.
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.
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.
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.