We represented our client for OVI charges and achieved a dismissal of the charges through intensive negotiations with the prosecutor.

Our client had a medical issue that limited the weight he could lift. The employer terminated him, claiming he could not do his job. Although our client was initially denied unemployment benefits, we demonstrated that there is no just cause to terminate for bonafide medical issues. As a result, our client was approved for benefits.

Our client accepted a new job while on unemployment but found the physical demands of the job exceeded is ability. As a result he resigned. Although unemployment initially denied him for the denial, we prevailed at the hearing by showing he was not medically able to do the job. As a result, his benefits were approved.

Our client worked at a medical office where COVID safety protocols were not being followed. She raised her concerns to the employer to no avail and as a result resigned. The Hearing Officer agreed that she had just cause to resign and was approved for unemployment benefits.

Our client was receiving unemployment when he received a job offer. He could not work the week the job was offered due to a medical reason. ODJFS denied him benefits from the date of the job offer forward. The Hearing Officer held; however, that while he was not able to work one week, he was eligible for all other weeks and future claims. His unemployment was approved with benefits.

Our client was asked to return to work after being laid off due to COVID. She had concerns about returning that she expressed to the employer and awaited a response. The employer responded by terminating her though, claiming she no-call/no-showed for work. The Hearing Officer disagreed and issued a decision approving our client for unemployment benefits.

Our client was charged with a second lifetime OVI and a refusal. After working with our client, obtaining discovery and negotiating with the prosecutor, an agreement was reached to reduce the OVI to a traffic citation saving our client from high points, jail time, high fines and the impact of an OVI to his driving record and insurance.

Our client worked as a substitute teacher until he was laid off. While collecting unemployment, he turned down a job offer at a fast-food restaurant. Unemployment denied him for turning down the offer, but we showed that he had good cause to turn it down and the Hearing Officer approved him for benefits.

Our client received a lump sum severance payment that ODJFS claimed was deductible income, disqualifying her from benefits, for several week. With our help, our client obtained a letter from her employer allocating the severance to the week in which it was paid. We persuaded the Hearing Officer that the severance should only applied to the week in which it was paid rather than several weeks, and as a result our client was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.

Our client was charged with a second OVI with a breath test that was nearly twice the legal limit. However, after successfully presenting both legal challenges and mitigating circumstances, and agreement was reached to reduce the OVI to a non-moving violation, saving our client from high points to his license, jail and a license suspension.

Our client was cited with an OVI, with an over-the-limit test, after a caller reported him and he was involved in a minor traffic accident. Through meeting with the prosecutor, obtaining and evaluating the police reports and video, we raised issues with regard to the field sobriety tests and breath test. As a result, our client accepted an offer to reduce the OVI to a traffic citation to avoid a year-long license suspension, high points and high fines.

Our client was initially denied unemployment compensation after she resigned from her restaurant job. The employer did not enforce mask wearing despite her repeated requests and reminders for it to do so. This placed our client and her elderly mother with whom she lived at greater risk for COVID. We showed the Hearing Officer that our client had an legitimate safety concern, the employer was not following state mandates, and that our client notified the employer of the concerns and gave them an adequate opportunity to resolve them before resigning. As a result, the Hearing Officer ruled in our favor and approved unemployment compensation benefits.

The employer raised several allegations to support its decision to terminate our client who worked at a cellphone store. During the hearing we showed the Hearing Officer that the employer lacked evidence to substantiate its allegations. Rather, our client presented credible testimony denying the allegations and as a result the Hearing Officer concluded that the employer lacked just cause to terminate our client. He was approved for unemployment compensation with a back payment.

Our client was cited with an OVI and for speeding after a traffic stop where the state trooper chose not to provide all of the available field sobriety tests, indicated reasons why the one test that was offered was unreliable, and then failed to offer a breath test or urine test. After pursuing a suppression motion laying out the legal deficiencies of the traffic stop and lack of evidence for the charges, an agreement was reached to dismiss both the speeding ticket and the OVI with our client pleading to a minor misdemeanor traffic citation with a minimal fine and no license suspension.

We previously prevailed at a labor arbitration in which a union member was awarded their job back. When they returned, they were kept from working despite a contractual 40-hour guarantee because the employer said they could not work without their full uniform in training, despite the employer failing to provide the uniform and despite allowing other trainees work without full uniform. The arbitrator agreed that the employer's failure to meet the 40-hour guarantee was a breach of the CBA without sufficient justification. As a result, the employer was ordered to compensate the union member for their lost work hours.

Our client received a group text from his employer informing him that he was laid off. As a result, he applied for unemployment compensation only to find his employer challenging his claim by arguing that he resigned. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that our client was, in fact, entitled to benefits as a result of a layoff.

When our client was hired at a lawn care business he explained that he had medical issues that required him to operate stand on mowers instead of push mowers. The employer, however, assigned him to work on push mowers. After trying and experiencing pain as a result, our client resigned. He was initially denied unemployment benefits; however, through a hearing we persuaded the Hearing Officer that he was eligible because his medical issues made the work not suitable for him.

Our client applied for benefits after losing a job and was denied. He then obtained new employment where he worked for more than six weeks until he was laid off due to COVID. He reapplied for benefits and was denied again due to the first job. We represented him through a telephone hearing and showed that his employment at the new job was for sufficient weeks and income to remove the suspension of benefits from the first job.

Our client worked as a delivery driver at an employer who repeatedly violated Department of Transportation rules. After our client raised these concerns and the employer refused to address them, he resigned. ODJFS initially denied unemployment benefits claiming our client lacked just cause to resign. During a hearing, we persuaded the Hearing Officer that these violations occurred, that they created a safety hazard, that our client raised his concerns and gave the employer an adequate opportunity to resolve them, and as a result he had just cause to resign. His benefits were approved with a back payment.

Our client's employer sent a notice to its employees that said, any employee that has significant concerns or fear of continued employment shall be laid off and may apply for economic relief available through state or federal sources. The employer appealed, claiming our client was out of work due to health reasons. We prevailed, showing that our client was eligible because he was laid off pursuant to an employer layoff plan and that it was related to a lack of work.

Our client sought a job while she was on unemployment, attended an orientation and then was told that she would need to restart the orientation because she was unable to attend the second day. Though the employer never called her back or returned her calls to reschedule the orientation, unemployment denied her claiming she turned down an offer of suitable work. We convinced unemployment that she did not turn down work but rather was not called back and, as a result, she was approved for unemployment benefits.

A bus driver who was faced with an aggressive and threatening passenger took steps to protect himself, including holding the passenger's arms back, restraining her in a seat, and keeping her on the bus until the police arrived. The Employer terminated the bus driver claiming he contributed to the incident. We were able to persuade the arbitrator that the bus driver's actions were reasonable, measured and in self-defense under the circumstances and lack of training from the employer. As a result, he was awarded his job back with back-pay.

Our client was making a career in the customer service field and even had a related college degree. She accepted a job at Amazon as a customer service representative, only to find that her actual job duties would include working with delivery drivers to troubleshoot the application they used, as well as geofencing and package locating. Because she was given a technical job rather than a customer service job, the Hearing Officer agreed that she had just cause to resign. As a result, she approved for unemployment compensation with a back-payment of benefits.

Our client was denied unemployment as being monetarily ineligible. He filed an appeal, but after three months had not received an answer to his appeal. We stepped in, made contact with individuals and ODJFS, submitted payroll verification, and achieved a win for him and payment of the benefits he had been waiting for.

Our client was issued a notice by unemployment that they were overpaid unemployment and owed back over $11,000.00. We appealed, showing that the decision was in error, and as a result the overpayment was withdrawn and our client did not have to pay back to unemployment.

Our client had an otherwise good work record when a customer emailed a complaint about his "attitude." The Employer, without following up with the customer about the details of the complaint, terminated our client. The Hearing Officer agreed that the employer failed to provide credible evidence that it had just cause to terminate our client. As a result, he was approved for unemployment.

Our client had several absences from work and was terminated. During a hearing, we showed that she had medical excuses for her absences. We argued and set forth caselaw that says that employees are not at fault for absences due to bona fide medical conditions. Even if the employer can terminate the employee, they are still entitled to unemployment. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved our client for benefits.

OVI charges dismissed against our client, saving them from a license suspension, points to their license and high fines.

Our client quit a job to work a new job, then worked the new job for more than six weeks before being laid off due to COVID. She was denied unemployment because ODJFS determined she lacked just cause to quit the old job. However, the rule is that such a suspension of benefits is removed if the employee earns sufficient income and either (a) starts the new job within 7 days of the old job and works for at least 3 weeks, or (b) starts the new job more then 7 days after the old job and works the new job for at least 6 weeks. Since our client met this requirements, the Hearing Officer agreed to approve her for unemployment with backpayments.

Our client had been on FMLA and when that time ran out her employment ended. However, because she had a bona fide medical reason for being absent, the separation was a qualifying one. To be eligible for unemployment, she also had to show that she was able to work, even if she had some restrictions. We were able to show both that the separation did not disqualify her and that she was able to work, and as a result she was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.

Our client received a string of charges, including a first-degree misdemeanor resisting arrest charge, after a visit to the islands. We achieved an agreement for our client to plead to a minor misdemeanor charge with a fine of $150.00 in exchange for a dismissal of all other charges.

Our client received several first-degree misdemeanor charges (OVI, Hit-and-Skip, Resisting Arrest). However, as we argued her case we also argued that the state failed to provide body cam footage that it had available. As a result, all of the charges were dismissed in exchange for a plea to a non-moving traffic citation.

Our client was charged with an OVI due to a suspicion of driving while under the influence of narcotics. We showed the prosecutor and judge that this was only a suspicion, lacking of sufficient evidence to prove our client was impaired. An agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI, with our client pleading to just a traffic citation. This saved our client from high points to his license, a license suspension and high fines.

Our client was off of work due to medical issues. When his short term disability came to and end, the employer terminated him. The Hearing Officer agreed that a termination due to a medical issue is beyond a claimant's control and therefore without just cause. The Hearing Officer also agreed that, upon our client's release to work with some restrictions, he became eligible or benefits.

Our client worked as a supervisor at a factory where he supervised production employees and quality assurance employees. He was not permitted to discipline those employees, however. After certain defects were found on some parts that were produced, the employer terminated our client. We were able to show the Hearing Officer that our client could not be expected to actively supervise every employee when he was often filling in on the line for an employee that had called off. In fact, the employer could not point to what role our client had in the errors at all. As a result, he was approved for unemployment compensation.

While receiving unemployment, our client looked for another job and accepted one at Wal-Mart. However, she soon found that the physical demands off the job were too much due to a medical issue. As a result, she resigned and was denied unemployment due to the resignation. During the telephone hearing we showed that she had a medical reason to resign, attempted to resolve the issue with the employer before resigning, and as a result had just cause. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved her for unemployment with back pay for the weeks she did not receive benefits.

Our client's doctor provided medical documentation on more than one occasion that they recommended our client quarantine. During this time the employer terminated our client, stating they believed he did not want his job. The Hearing Officer ruled that our client was not approved for benefits through the regular unemployment system during the time of his quarantine because he was not able to work, though he could apply through the PUA system for those weeks. More importantly, the Hearing Officer ruled that the employer did not have just cause to terminate our client, so once his quarantine ended he did become eligible for benefits, was not overpaid benefits for those weeks, and was approved for benefits going forward.

The Employer claimed that our client was an independent contractor. We showed the Hearing Officer that the Employer's level of control over our client's duties caused him to be an employee, and thus eligible for unemployment. The Employer also argued that it had just cause to terminate our client, but we provided evidence that termination was too extreme and the Hearing Officer agreed. As a result, our client was approved for unemployment compensation.

Our client received a lump sum severance payment that Unemployment used to disqualify him for several weeks. At our direction, our client obtained a letter from the Employer indicating that the lump sum severance should be allocated all to the week in which it was paid for the purposes of unemployment. During a hearing, we reviewed the law with the Hearing Officer and she agreed that the lump sum severance should only be counted as deductible income for the week in which it was paid rather than allocated over months. As a result, he received a back-payment for benefits owed.

The Employer terminated our client who managed a fast food restaurant. It claimed it had just cause to do so when her subordinates failed to open the restaurant as instructed while she was off ill. The Hearing Officer disagreed and approved her for unemployment including a back-payment for the weeks she filed but was not paid.

Our client was terminated when she was unable to provide her employer with a return to work date from her doctor. However, at the time she was terminated she did not have a return to work date. Her doctor did not know when she could return. Therefore, the employer lacked just cause to terminate her or being absent due to a bona fide medical reason and the Hearing Officer approved her benefits.

Our client was denied unemployment benefits as being monetarily ineligible. He appealed the decision on his own on April 20, 2020, but as of July 8 he had not yet received a decision on his appeal. We stepped in and escalated his case on July 9. By July 14, he received Determinations approving his benefits as well as a backpayment for the weeks he filed but had not yet been paid.

Our client was a CDL driver, who had only 90 days to resolve a license suspension imposed as a result of an OVI, else he would lose his union job. We were able to reach an agreement to have our ALS appeal granted - thereby saving his CDL and job. We also had the OVI reduced in exchange or a citation for a non-moving violation.

Our client was terminated after the employer alleged that the employees she supervised complained. We put forth evidence that showed the employees were merely upset for being instructed to do their work and, if the employer disliked our client's management style it should have provided a warning or training before terminating her. As a result, she won her hearing and as approved for unemployment benefits.

The police charged our client due to a suspicion of impaired driving and as a result a breath test was conducted that resulted in an over-the-limit test. We filed a suppression motion to keep out the breath test, raising arguments about the stop, field sobriety tests and breath test. As a result of raising those arguments and through negotiations, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges, with our client pleading to a non-moving citation and simple traffic ticket instead.

Although our client was charged with an OVI, we successfully raised issues regarding whether the State could prove that he was actually operating a motor vehicle. After extensive negotiations with the prosecutor and discussions with the judge, and agree was reached for the State to dismiss the OVI charges in exchange for a plea to a non-moving violation.

Our client found her employer refused to provide protective equipment for COVID-19 and refused to follow safety precautions, even after she asked them to follow proper protocols. As a result, she resigned. After initially being denied unemployment compensation, we persuaded a hearing officer that this satisfied just cause to resign. Our client was approved for her unemployment and provided backpayments.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a third party made a report of drunk driving. During negotiations with the prosecutor, we argued that the State's evidence was almost entirely dependent upon the unreliable testimony of a lay witness. The prosecutor and judge ultimately agreed, result in an offer and acceptance of a complete dismissal of the OVI charges.

Our client was terminated after an accusation of harassing a co-worker; however, we showed the Hearing Officer that the employer lacked any proof of wrongdoing or prior discipline. Therefore, the Hearing Officer agreed that the termination was without just cause and our client was approved for unemployment with back-pay.

Our client was accused of being involved in a single car accident. The police arrived at our client's home after the accident and charged her with an OVI because they believed she had drinks. We argued that the police had no evidence to show that she did not have a drink AFTER the accident when she got home. Consequently, the OVI charges were reduced to a non-moving violation, saving our client from points to her license, jail, high fines, points to her license and an OVI on her record.

Our client went to New York for a personal matter; however, while he was gone his employer implemented a policy prohibiting leaving the state during COVID-19. In turn, it terminated our client when he returned to work. The Hearing Officer agreed that there was no just cause to terminate him because (a) the policy was issued while he was already out of the state; and (b) the employer was aware that he had left the state. His unemployment was approved.

Our client was pulled over due to an alleged marked lanes violation and ultimately cited with and OVI as well. After extensive negotiations and a suppression motion raising issues regarding the reason for the traffic stop, cause for expanding the stop, probable cause for arrest, and issues with the field sobriety tests, we were able to obtain a dismissal of the OVI. Instead there was a plea to a non-moving violation. This saved our client from an OVI on her record, a year-long license suspension, a mandatory drivers intervention program, jail time, points to her license and a high fine.

After an employer informed our client of a demotion, she put a post on Facebook that hard work and loyalty meant nothing, but she did not mention her employer or indicate that she was talking about work. The employer jumped to its own conclusions about the post and terminated her. The Hearing Officer agreed with us, that the post did not violated the employer's social networking policy and did not constitute misconduct. As a result, our client was approved for unemployment, including back-pay for the weeks it had initially been denied.

After our client was charged with a traffic citation and an OVI, we aggressively argued her case with the State and were able to obtain a dismissal of the OVI charge, saving our client from high points, jail time, having to attend a drivers intervention program and from any license suspension.

Our client was involved in a head-on collision, after which she was charged with an OVI and tested over-the-limit. Although many factors weighed against her, we fought for her and obtained a reduction to a reckless op charge. This lead to an immediate return of her license, vacating the $475 reinstatement fee, avoiding high points to her license, and without any requirement for her to attend jail or a drivers intervention program.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a car accident. After extensive negotiations at the Mayor's court and then the Municipal Court, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI with a plea to a non-moving violation instead. This saved our client from jail, points to her license, a lengthy license suspension, and the impact to her job.

Our client was charged with an OVI, drug possession and drug paraphernalia charges after an accident. Negotiations with the prosecutor and discussions with the judge resulted in a dismissal of the drug possession and paraphernalia charges and an agreement to reduce the OVI to a simple motor vehicle equipment violation, saving our client from high fines, high points to his license, disqualification from student aid, a license suspension and other implications.

Our client was a supervisor. One of the people he supervised became upset with him due to a disciplinary warning and to retaliate, she claimed he had threatened her. It was confirmed that this was not true and our client told the other employee that he did not appreciate her telling a lie about him. The employer terminated our client. During a hearing, we showed unemployment that the accusation did not support just cause for termination and the Hearing Officer ruled in our favor.

After our client was charged with a second OVI in ten years, with enhanced penalties due to a refusal to submit to a breath test, we provided an aggressive defense by demanding all reports, videos and documentation and used that evidence to craft a suppression motion detailing significant issues with the State's case. We arrived at the court the day of the suppression hearing ready to pull apart the State's case, though further negotiations resulted in an offer for a plea to a reduced traffic charge saving our client from all mandatory jail time, another OVI on his record, high fines, high points to his driving record, and potential loss of his job.

Our client entered the wrong road to a state park and was ultimately charged with an over-the-limit OVI after urine test results were returned. After filing a suppression motion raising issues regarding whether the one-way road was properly marked and whether the police had sufficient suspicion of impairment to justify expanding and prolonging the traffic stop, the State agreed to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading to a traffic offense. This saved our client from high fines, from a one-year license suspension, six-points to his license, and due to our client's need for security clearances it saved him his job.

After our client was terminated for moving seats during a meeting because a co-worker's perfume was aggravating her respiratory condition, ODJFS denied her unemployment benefits repeatedly. We appealed, showed the Hearing Officer how ridiculous the termination was, and obtained a decision awarding our client eligibility and a back-payment for the weeks ODJFS should have been providing benefits.

Our client was terminated after an allegation that he falsified time sheets. However, we presented a case to the Hearing Officer that showed the employer's records were unreliable and could not support a termination with just cause. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving our client for unemployment compensation with back-payments.

Our client was charge with a regular OVI and an over-the-limit OVI after she was pulled over for a headlight issue and given a breath test. After attending a pre-trial, filing a suppression motion, and attending a hearing; the prosecutor and judge agreed to an offer to dismiss the OVI charges in exchange to a plea to a traffic charge. Important in this case was an argument about the State Trooper prolonging the detention to investigate an OVI with little evidence of an OVI, and the Trooper's claim that our client's speech was slow and slurred despite the video showing clear, articulate and responsive speech.

Our client was charged with an over-the-limit OVI and traffic citations. After reviewing several issues with the prosecutor, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges, with our client pleading instead to two traffic citations.

Our client was charged with a third-lifetime OVI charge with the police officer claiming he failed all field sobriety tests. By raising legal arguments with respect to each of the tests and probable cause to arrest, an agreement was reached at a suppression hearing to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading to a reckless op. charge instead. By doing so, we were able to help our client keep his job.

At the Cleveland RTA, some rail operators perform work in the rail yard. These employees must meet certain qualifications to do this yard work. The RTA started to remove employees from yard work due to subsequent disciplinary allegations. The Union grieved the change in practice, which ultimately led to a labor arbitration. We persuaded that arbitrator that the RTA's unilateral decision to force operators to re-qualify for the yard work each pick violated an agreed upon past practice. The RTA could not change that practice without first negotiating with the union.

Through extensive discussions with the prosecutor, an agreement was reached to dismiss OVI charges for a second-in-ten with an over the limit chemical test, agreeing to a non-moving violation with no points and no jail time instead.

Our client was charged with an OVI after allegedly failing two of three field sobriety tests and providing a breath test that was over the limit. After reviewing the police reports and video, we were able to argue that the State had issues with its case. As a result, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charge, with our client pleading to a non-moving traffic citation instead.

Our client was subjected to a urine test for suspicion of drugs and charged with an OVI. After conducting a thorough investigation into the case, we raised evidence that our client was not, in fact, impaired. The prosecutor ultimately agreed to dismiss the OVI charges, accepting a plea to a minor misdemeanor instead with only a small fine.

After reviewing discovery responses including police reports and video, we met with the prosecutor and persuaded him to dismiss OVI charges against our client, resulting in an immediate return of her drivers license.

Our client was a CDL holder and charged with an OVI. We initially persuaded the the court to stay the administrative license suspension so our client could get back to work. When then persuaded the court to dismiss the OVI and vacate the administrative license suspension to save our clients CDL and job.

Our client was questioned by her employer about an accusation, during which a manager raised his voice. Our client started to leave the manager's office when she was told they would consider her to have resigned if she left. She returned to the office, only to have the manager increase his attack, yelling and pounding his fist on his desk. Our client left the office again and returned to her work duties when the employer told her to leave. Despite the employer claiming our client resigned, we showed the hearing officer that she was terminated without just cause and her benefits were approved.

Our client was terminated for an allegation that he failed to report an auto accident. We showed that he was not at fault for the accident, did not initially observe any damage, and that he called the accident in within minutes. Even though our client was a probationary employee, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate in these circumstances. Our client was approved for unemployment and issued a backpayment.

Our client was one of several staff that went with students to a field trip. One of the students walked away from the group and the employer terminated our client as a result. We showed that our client was not assigned to supervise this student. The employer's reliance on self-serving written statements of other staff on the trip was found to be in error as the statements were not credible when countered by our client's credible testimony given under oath. As a result, our client was approved for benefits and received a backpayment.

Our client was pulled over for speeding and not wearing a seatbelt. He was ultimately arrested and charged with an OVI as well. We challenged the state's failure to preserve video from back-up state troopers who arrived, achieving a ruling that the four back-up officers could not testify as a result. The State threatened additional felony charges from an allegation that our client got a replacement driver’s license while his was suspended. We responded that this was coercion, designed to pressure our client into a plea. While awaiting the jurors to be called in for trial, we achieved a complete dismissal of the OVI, promise not to bring other charges, and a waiver of costs for calling in a jury.

Our client accepted a job offer only to find out that the employer planned to classify him as an Independent Contractor. Independent contractors are generally paid with an 1099 without taxes being withheld and they are not eligible for unemployment compensation. However, there are rules and tests to determine whether a person should be classified as an employee or independent contractor. In this case, we showed that the employer improperly classified our client and, as a result, he was eligible for unemployment compensation.

Our client was a manager who was terminated because she was accused of giving discipline to a staff member in front of other employees and because the employer believed she had not met her goals under a performance plan. The employer failed to present any witness regarding the discipline given to the other employee and our client credibly testified that she gave the discipline in an office with the door closed. With regard to the performance plan, the Employer agreed that our client's goals and expectations had been changed and she still had another month left to meet the revised goals. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate.

Our client was charged with an OVI; however, after extensive negotiations the OVI charges were dismissed.

Our client was terminated, despite having no prior discipline, after an allegation that she failed to pass a test at work. Through preparation and presentation of her case, we presented credible evidence that she did pass the test. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved her unemployment compensation.

An employer terminated our client for making an error on her time sheet even though she had no prior discipline. The Hearing Officer agreed that the error was not intentional and the employer lacked just cause to terminate an employee for a single incident with no prior discipline.

The RTA reclassified and reduced the pay a union employee as a non-union employee while they participated in training during a transfer between union positions. After a labor arbitration hearing, the arbitrator agreed with Amalgamated Transit Union Local 268 that the RTA breached the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator also ordered the RTA to give the grievant back-pay for the pay she lost.

Our client was terminated for an allegation of falsifying her time card, but when she was terminated the employer failed to allow her to fully respond or to get her phone that she asserted had proof that the allegation was untrue. The employer then proceeded with the hearing offering conclusory assertions without any evidence to support its claim. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked sufficient just cause at the time of the termination, and the benefits were approved.

Our client was terminated for failing to meet sales goals after being placed on a performance improvement plan. We were able to show the hearing officer that the goals were aspirational and not requirements of the job, that the goals and the job had changed, that our client had received a positive performance review, and that another sales person who did not meet their "goals" was not disciplined. The Hearing Officer agreed that the termination was without just cause and that our client was eligible for unemployment compensation.

Although the State had a BAC test to use in their case, we reached a resolution resulting a dismissal of OVI charges, saving our client from a mandatory one-year license suspension, high fines and jail.

Our client was charged with an OVI even though his breath test was slightly under the legal limit. The police can do this if they believe they have sufficient evidence of impairment regardless of the breath test results. We were able to argue that the other evidence in this case was weak, and as a result an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI, thus saving our client from any license suspension and from high fines and high points to his license.

Our client was charged with a high tier OVI after she blow over 0.17 during a traffic stop; however, we reached an agreement for her to have the OVI dismissed, leaving only a non-moving citation. As a result, she was saved from points to her license, the impact to her auto insurance and mandatory jail time.

The employer terminated our client even though she had not received any prior discipline or notice that her job was in jeopardy. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that the employer had not shown that our client purposely broke any rules or policies, that she was insubordinate in any way, or that she was subject to discharge for any reason. As a result, our appeal was granted and our client was approved for benefits.

Our client was charged with a refusal second OVI in ten years, which would have carried with it a mandatory twenty days in jail. We pushed forward with evidence that she was not actually the operator of the motor vehicle and reached an agreement for her to have the OVI dismissed, receiving only a non-moving citation instead.

Our client's wife notified the employer that her husband would not be able to work due to a medical reasons. The employer responded by terminating our client claiming he no-call/no-showed. The Hearing Officer agreed that the absence was beyond our client's control and the employer received adequate notice due to the circumstances. Our client's unemployment compensation claim was approved and he was granted back-pay.

Our client was charged with an OVI after allegedly rolling through a stop sign and marked lanes violations. We obtained an agreement for her to have the OVI dismissed with just a traffic citation instead. She was happy to have been saved from a non-expungable OVI on her record, high points to her license, and other implications of an OVI.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a pedestrian accident that resulted in no injuries, even though our client took a breath test that showed he was under the limit for alcohol. The State then claimed that he was impaired due to prescription medications. After raising arguments through pre-trials and motions regarding the State's need to show a nexus between the prescriptions and any impairment, we were able to get the OVI dismissed and the license suspension terminated.

Our client had several absences from work, exceeding the employer's attendance policy. However, the absences were due to a bona fide medication reasons. The Hearing Officer agreed that an employer lacks just cause to terminate for absences due to bona fide medical reasons, and as a result our client was approved for unemployment and granted back-payments.

Our client was charged with an over-the-limit OVI as well as other traffic citations. After raising evidentiary issues through a suppression motion and negotiating with the prosecutor, and agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI and traffic citations in exchange for a plea to a non-moving violation. Our client was protected from an OVI on his record, increased auto-insurance rates and other implications of an OVI.

In this case, the grievant applied for and passed testing for a promotion, but the RTA refused to promote him even though it had an open position. In fact, it later promoted someone else to the position. The arbitrator agreed that the RTA violated the collective bargaining agreement, ordered the RTA to place the grievant in the next available position, and to give him back-pay that he lost from not being promoted until he receives his promotion.

The employer terminated our client for violating their attendance policy; however, the Hearing Officer agreed that terminations are without just cause when the absences are due to a bona fide medical issue. As a result, we won the unemployment hearing.

The employer discovered two incidents of paperwork being altered or incorrect and it terminated our client as a result. We showed the hearing officer that our client had not engaged in the alleged misconduct and as a result her unemployment benefits were approved.

In this case, a union member with a good work record was terminated by the RTA for using a GPS device to find her way to passengers pick-up and drop-off locations. The RTA claimed this violated its cellphone policy, even though the GPS device was not a cellphone. The arbitrator agreed that the termination was excessive and returned the grievant to work with back-pay

After much discussion and negotiation, as well as a suppression motion, we are able to reach an agreement to reduce a second in twenty OVI, with an alleged refusal, to a reckless op. charge. We were additionally able to vacate the administrative license suspension saving our client from the reinstatement fee.

After extensive negotiations and taking steps to mitigate the charges, a resolution was reached where charges of an OVI, marked lanes and speeding were reduced to a non-moving violation, saving our client from jail, points to their driving record, a reinstatement fee to the BMV, and a one-year license suspension.

Our client was alleged to have violated the law by hitting a fence post and leaving the scene. After arguing that the correct statute provides twenty-four hours to report an accident involving property other than another motor vehicle and demonstrating that our client's driving record was otherwise clean, an agreement was reached to dismiss the hit and skip charges entirely.