Testimonials

An executive was fired after allegedly failing to inform her employer that she would return from Family and Medical Leave Act leave one day after her original anticipated return-to-work date. This executive had used less than half of her FMLA leave allotment, kept her employer fully informed of her status in accordance with its policies and procedures, and was entitled to more than twice the FMLA leave than she actually took. When her employer wrongfully terminated this executive mere hours after human resources erroneously thought she should be back at work, she hired Mr. Shoemaker. After a trial in United States District Court, she was awarded more than $747,000 in damages. This is the largest FMLA verdict ever obtained in Virginia.

Mr. Shoemaker represented a group of African-American employees who asserted claims of race discrimination, harassment and retaliation against a large corporate employer. After months of litigation, hearings on various issues and numerous depositions, a settlement was recovered in the amount of $4,000,000.

Three separate Fraternal Orders of Police have chosen Mr. Shoemaker to represent urban police forces in wage and hour matters. Two of these cases resulted in more than $3.8 million in settlements and a third case is still in litigation.

Mr. Shoemaker has represented many relators in False Claims Act and Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower actions. His clients have participated in cases that have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being returned to government agencies and his clients earning several millions of dollars in whistleblower awards. Mr. Shoemaker’s experience as an employment lawyer makes him a more effective qui tam lawyer. In several of these cases, parallel retaliation claims were also asserted that afforded his clients significant additional recoveries.

A group of industrial workers retained Mr. Shoemaker to assert claims of unpaid overtime against their employer. This case dealt primarily with the workers not being paid for donning and doffing special equipment at the beginning and end of their shifts. The equipment was critical to the safe and effective performance of their positions. The employer had not been paying them for the time necessary to don and doff the equipment. Mr. Shoemaker obtained a settlement for his clients in the amount of $750,000.00.

In an Americans with Disabilities Act case, Mr. Shoemaker represented a woman who suffered from hyper-reactive airways disease. She worked in an industrial setting and, ultimately, lost her employment because she was no longer able to work in the environment. It was alleged that the company did not follow certain MSDS sheet protections which could have accommodated her disability. Mr. Shoemaker brought a case for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and obtained a recovery for his client in the amount of $185,000.

Mr. Shoemaker represented an executive in a case involving wrongful firing in breach of an employment contract. After a lengthy arbitration, judgment was entered in Mr. Shoemaker's client's favor. The client was reinstated to his position with back pay.

In another ADA case, Mr. Shoemaker represented an employee who was diagnosed with cancer. The company terminated the employee not long after hearing of the employee's cancer diagnosis. Mr. Shoemaker got the employee reinstated to his position as well as payment of attorney's fees.

In another ADA case, Mr. Shoemaker represented a policeman who was injured apprehending a criminal. The policeman could no longer work as a patrolman and his employment was terminated. Contending that the city had other positions that would have sufficed as an accommodation for the policeman, Mr. Shoemaker brought an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and obtained a six-figure recovery.

In the representation of federal employees, an attorney's willingness to appeal a case out of the administrative EEO/MSPB case resolution system is critical to obtaining significant settlements during the administrative process. Like many practitioners in this field, Mr. Shoemaker has successfully resolved many cases in the government's administrative hearing and settlement process. Unlike many practitioners in the field, however, Mr. Shoemaker is willing to appeal cases to U.S. District Court (for jury trial) when he is not satisfied with the administrative result. Mr. Shoemaker has appealed eight such cases in which the government made an administrative finding adverse to the employee or in which no settlement offer was made at all during the administrative process. On appeal to U.S. District Court, he obtained the following results in these eight cases:

In two cases, Mr. Shoemaker obtained six-figure recoveries for his clients;

In one case Mr. Shoemaker obtained a $90,000 recovery for his client;

In one case, Mr. Shoemaker represented a terminated government employee who was reinstated to his job and awarded $17,000 in fees and costs;

In two cases, Mr. Shoemaker's clients received recoveries of approximately $15,000 and $40,000, respectively;

Two cases resulted in no recoveries.

The important point here is not just the individual recoveries themselves, but Mr. Shoemaker's willingness to take these cases to federal court when circumstances warrant. When government counsel knows that their opponents are willing to take the matter out of the administrative case resolution process to federal court, there is a greater likelihood of a favorable settlement early in the administrative process.