Practice Area

Employment Law

Representing employees and employers in Miami-Dade, Broward County, and throughout South Florida — wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, wage and hour claims, and related employment disputes in state and federal courts.

Types of Employment Matters We Handle

  • Title VII discrimination
  • FCRA (Florida Civil Rights Act)
  • FLSA wage & overtime claims
  • FMLA interference & retaliation
  • PWFA (Pregnant Workers Fairness Act)
  • ADEA age discrimination
  • Section 1981 race discrimination
  • Sexual harassment & hostile work environment
  • Wrongful termination
  • Retaliation & whistleblower claims
  • Constructive discharge
  • EEOC charges & investigations
  • Non-compete & non-solicitation disputes
  • Trade secret & confidentiality claims
  • Employment contract disputes

Reported Employment Decisions

A selection of reported decisions in employment law matters — in Florida state courts and the federal district courts.

Disclaimer: The following is a selection of reported decisions for informational purposes only. Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. The outcome of any particular case depends on the facts, law, and circumstances unique to that case.

Employment Law Labor Trafficking
Estill v. DipNeil, LLC
2025
United States District Court
Northern District of Florida
2025 WL 2268357

Denying motion to dismiss claims brought by hotel workers who alleged they lived on-site in deplorable conditions. Court found sufficient allegations of serious harm under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and sustained FLSA, unjust enrichment, and emotional distress claims. Pending litigation.

Employment Law Defamation
Murray v. Nova Southeastern University
2023
Broward County Circuit Court

Representation of a university professor in a defamation case against the university.

Employment Law
Cooper v. Empower U Inc.
2022
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
603 F. Supp. 3d 1317

Representing plaintiff in a workplace tort action arising from claims of sexual assault on the job. The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, holding that the complaint’s allegations — that the employer sent a sexual assault victim back to work without medical attention or law enforcement contact, engaged in victim-blaming, and deliberately disseminated information about the attack — were sufficient to state a claim — and that a lower standard of outrageousness applied given the employer’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s susceptibility to distress.

Employment Law Defamation
Selinger v. Kimera Labs
2022
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
2022 WL 34444

Representing plaintiff, a former Chief Regulatory Officer at a biotech company, in a multi-claim action alleging non-consensual contact by the company’s CEO and CTO, retaliatory termination, denial of promised equity, and a coordinated campaign to disseminate private information and defamatory statements about her. The court denied partial motions to dismiss, sustaining five challenged claims — negligent misrepresentation, two counts of negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts), and defamation — alongside pre-existing claims alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and civil rights violations.

Employment Law Commercial Litigation
Selinger v. Kimera Labs
2022
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
2022 WL 668340

Represented a former biotech executive in a Southern District of Florida employment lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment under Title VII, as well as defamation, invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts), fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under Florida law. The court found a prima facie basis for sanctions under its inherent power and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 based on the defendant’s repeated failure to disclose an Employment Practices Liability Insurance policy covering her claims, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Fla. Stat. § 627.4137. Final ruling was reserved pending full development of harm; the defendant’s cross-motion for sanctions was denied as meritless.

Employment Law
Cruz v. Jinny Beauty Supply
2019
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
2019 WL 5212463

Representing plaintiff in an employment discrimination action arising from the termination of a long-tenured international salesperson. The court denied summary judgment on age discrimination (ADEA) and race/national origin discrimination (Title VII) claims, finding that the employer’s statements at the time of termination constituted direct evidence of age discrimination and that systematic disparate treatment of non-Korean employees — including exclusion from Korean-language business meetings and denial of salaried pay and benefits — raised genuine issues of material fact, with the employer’s proffered performance-based justification undermined by inconsistencies in its own sales records.

Employment Law
Luxama v. City of Miami Beach
2020
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida

Representation of a City of Miami Beach financial analyst who alleged gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment, alleging that a supervisor repeatedly made denigrating comments about her appearance and body. Plaintiff further alleged she was placed on a performance improvement plan while on family medical leave and ultimately wrongfully terminated. Covered by Miami New Times.

Landmark
Employment Law Defamation
Murphy v. City of Aventura
2012
Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

Representing plaintiff Katherine Murphy, the founding principal of Aventura City of Excellence School, in a defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy action against the city manager of Aventura and the charter school management company following her abrupt termination in 2006. The city manager had accused Murphy of accepting kickbacks to admit a student outside the school’s waitlist — allegations a jury flatly rejected — and Murphy alleged the city manager subjected her to years of harassment that left her unable to find work in education and caused catastrophic physical harm, including intestinal rupture and a six-week coma. After a month-long trial before a Miami-Dade jury, Murphy prevailed with a $155.7 million verdict — the 17th largest in the United States in 2012. The trial court subsequently granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on sovereign immunity grounds.

$155.7 Million Jury Verdict
Common Questions

Employment Law FAQ

The following information is provided for general educational purposes only.
It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

What does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibit? +

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The prohibition covers hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, and any other term or condition of employment. Title VII also prohibits workplace harassment based on those protected characteristics and bars retaliation against individuals who oppose discriminatory practices or participate in an EEOC proceeding.

What is the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact? +

Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination — an employer treats an employee differently because of a protected characteristic such as race, sex, or religion. Disparate impact, by contrast, does not require proof of intent. A disparate impact claim arises when a facially neutral employment policy or practice disproportionately excludes members of a protected class and the employer cannot show the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Both theories are cognizable under Title VII.

What types of claims can an employee bring under Title VII? +

Under Title VII, employees may bring claims for discriminatory discharge, discriminatory failure to hire or promote, pay discrimination, harassment or hostile work environment, and retaliation. A hostile work environment claim requires showing that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. A retaliation claim requires showing that the employer took a materially adverse action because the employee engaged in protected activity — such as filing an EEOC charge or complaining about discrimination.

How long do I have to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC? +

In states like Florida that have a state agency authorized to remedy discrimination — called deferral states — a charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the discriminatory act. In non-deferral states, the deadline is 180 days. These deadlines are strict; failing to file a timely charge will generally bar a Title VII lawsuit in federal court. Because the clock starts running from the date of each discrete discriminatory act, it is important to consult an employment attorney as soon as possible.

Does Title VII apply to all employers? +

Title VII applies to private employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and federal, state, and local governments. Employers with fewer than 15 employees are not covered by Title VII, though they may still be subject to state or local anti-discrimination laws. An employee count below the threshold is an affirmative defense the employer must raise; courts count all employees on the payroll for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.

What counts as protected activity under Title VII’s retaliation provision? +

Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee or applicant for asserting their rights under the law. Protected activity includes filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, opposing an employment practice the employee reasonably believes violates Title VII, and testifying or participating in a Title VII investigation or proceeding. To establish a retaliation claim, an employee must show that they engaged in protected activity, that the employer took a materially adverse action against them, and that the adverse action was causally connected to the protected activity.

Who is eligible for overtime pay under the FLSA? +

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered employers to pay non-exempt employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Whether an employee is exempt turns on their duties and salary, not their job title. The most common exemptions — executive, administrative, and professional — each require that the employee earn at least a specified minimum salary and perform duties that primarily involve management, the exercise of discretion, or advanced knowledge. Employers who misclassify non-exempt employees as exempt may be liable for unpaid overtime.

Does an employee’s job title determine whether they are exempt from overtime? +

No — job title alone does not determine exempt status under the FLSA. Exemption turns on two things in combination: salary and job duties. An employee generally must earn at least the applicable minimum salary threshold set by the Department of Labor and perform duties that fall within a recognized exemption category, such as executive, administrative, or professional roles. An employee who earns more than the salary threshold but whose duties do not qualify under an exemption category remains non-exempt and entitled to overtime.

What are the main categories of employees exempt from FLSA overtime? +

The FLSA recognizes several categories of overtime-exempt employees, including executives, administrative employees, professional employees (such as doctors, lawyers, and dentists with specialized knowledge), outside sales personnel, and certain computer professionals. To qualify, the employee must generally also earn at least the minimum salary threshold established by the Department of Labor. Employees who do not fall within one of these categories are non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, regardless of how much they earn.

What does the ADEA protect against? +

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and applicants who are 40 years of age or older. It covers hiring, firing, pay, promotions, and other terms and conditions of employment. The ADEA also prohibits age-based harassment that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, and bars retaliation against employees who assert their rights under the statute.

What are the elements of an age discrimination claim under the ADEA? +

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, an employee must generally show: (1) they are at least 40 years old; (2) their performance met the employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) the employer took an adverse action against them, such as termination or failure to hire; and (4) the adverse action was because of their age. If the employee makes that showing, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action. The employee must then show that reason is a pretext for age discrimination.

Does the ADEA apply to all employers? +

The ADEA covers private employers with 20 or more employees, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor organizations, and the federal government. Unlike Title VII, which covers employers with 15 or more employees, the ADEA’s threshold is 20 employees. Employers below that threshold are not covered by the ADEA, though they may still be subject to state laws prohibiting age discrimination.

Ready to Discuss Your Case?

Ratings & Recognition