Case Results

John Jason Davis v. Johnstone Group, Inc

A Tennessee appeals court upheld a trial court’s decision in favor of our client, who was accused of violating a non-compete agreement when he left his employer. The court agreed that there were no special facts present over and above ordinary competition or any legitimate predictable business interests to warrant enforcement of the non-competition agreement.

Friends of Georges, Inc., v. Steven J. Mulroy

In a case of first impression in the nation, our team obtained declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act when Judge Thomas Parker of Tennessee’s Western District Court declared the Adult Entertainment Act, Tennessee’s drag ban codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 7-51-1401, -1407, and § 39-17-901, unconstitutional and enjoined the government from enforcing the law within Shelby County following a consolidated preliminary injunction hearing and trial on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2).

HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Melanie Griffin

Following our team’s win in Tennessee, a Florida district court granted preliminary injunctive relief against the enforcement of Florida Statute § 827.11, Florida’s drag ban, in our client’s favor. The Court determined that our client was likely to succeed on its First Amendment challenge to the law because the Act was content-based on its face as well as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Autumn Sanders v. Shelby County Schools

Following years of litigation and a week-long jury trial our team obtained a $350,000 jury verdict in our client’s favor for the failure of Shelby County Schools to reasonably accommodate our client as to her read aloud accommodation and to reasonable accommodate our client as to access to elevators while she attended Central High School.

Turnage et al., v. Oldham et al.

In a jail class action suit our team, along with Watson Burns, LLC, and Black McLaren Jones Ryland and Griffee PC, obtained a $4,900,000.00 settlement for individuals over detained by the Shelby County, Tennessee Jail as a result of the November 2016 implementation of the Odessey computer system. The suit alleged that individuals arrested between November 1, 2016 and March 21, 2021, were detained for a time longer than the law provided as a result of the implementation of the Odessey computer system.

Shelby County Jail Improper Detention $4.9M Class Action Settlement - Top Class Actions

G.S. v. Lee, R.K. v. Lee, S.B. v. Lee, R.K. v. Lee II,

Our team obtained injunctive relief by tackling the misguided efforts by Governor Lee of Tennessee to prohibit mask mandates within Tennessee schools to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in four separate cases.

EEOC v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

On behalf of Maurice Knox, Donati Law intervened in this lawsuit originally filed by the EEOC against Skanska USA Building, Inc. for severe racial harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Skanska was the general contractor in charge of the construction of the new Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital. During construction, Mr. Knox and a number of other African-American workers were employed to operate the buck hoists or the temporary elevators that haul people and materials to different floors on construction sites. The buck hoist operators on the site had been hired directly by a sub-contractor, C-1, Inc. C-1’s interaction with the buck hoist operators, however, was largely limited to serving as a staffing agency as the responsibilities and duties of day-to-day supervision were assumed by Skanska.

At summary judgment, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Skanska was an “employer” under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Skanska argued that C-1 was not the buck hoist operators employer and thus could be not liable for racial harassment and retaliation. Donati Law, on behalf of Mr. Knox, and the EEOC argued that Skanska was an employer under the “joint employer” liability theory, which states that entities that “share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment” are considered “employers” and are thus subject to liability under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court found in favor of Skanska and Mr. Knox and the EEOC immediately appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

After briefing and oral argument, the three judge panel consisting of Hon. John M. Rogers, Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, and Hon. Paul D. Borman (sitting by special designation out of the Eastern District of Michigan) reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. Notably, the court’s opinion authorized by Judge Kethledge held, “The reality is that C-1 was a nonentity on the construction site…. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the record here is enough to support a determination Skanska jointly employed the operators.”

Attorneys Donald A. Donati, William B. Ryan, and Bryce W. Ashby were on brief. Mr. Donati argued for Mr. Knox at oral argument.

Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. White

In 1999, we filed suit on behalf of Sheila White for sexual harassment and retaliation that she sustained while working for BNSF. Seven years later, after a jury verdict in her favor, and multiple levels of appellate review, the United States Supreme Court unanimously found in favor of Ms. White. Ms. White's victory was precedent setting. First, the Supreme Court held that application of Title VII's anti-retaliation is not limited to workplace actions. Second, the Supreme Court held that any action taken by an employer that might well dissuade a reasonable person from making a charge of discrimination is actionable under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision.

Crews v. Buckman Laboratories Intern. Co., Inc.

In a case of first impression, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that in-house attorneys have the right to bring a common law retaliatory discharge action in Tennessee.

Guy v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.

We filed suit on behalf of Mr. Guy alleging that his employer terminated his employment for reporting fraud committed by an unscrupulous insurance agent. After victory at the trial court and the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Mr. Guy again prevailed at the Tennessee Supreme Court, which held that Tennessee's whistleblower statute (TCA 50-1-304) is cumulative to, and does not preempt, the common law tort of retaliatory discharge where an employee is terminated for reporting illegal activities.

Tidwell v. City of Memphis

In our capacity as counsel for the Memphis Fire Fighters Assoc., Local 1784 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, we represented numerous Memphis fire fighters in a successful effort to have proceedings before the City's OJI panel governed by the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, thus ensuring for our clients the right to counsel in OJI proceedings before neutral and impartial fact finders.

Call for Prompt Legal Assistance