Case Results

Serving Clients in Virginia Beach, Hampton Roads, Washington D.C. & Throughout the U.S.

Important Note: Past case results as reported in this website do not guarantee and are not an adequate basis on which to predict similar results in future cases. The outcome of any lawsuit depends upon a variety of factors that are unique to each case.

Mr. Shoemaker has over 20 years of experience in handling very significant cases in the areas of employment law, False Claims Act, personal injury and wrongful death litigation. The following are selected case summaries of a few of the cases handled by Mr. Shoemaker over recent years:

  • Mr. Shoemaker represented a young African-American executive in a race discrimination case. Under his former supervisor, the young man excelled and was named Employee of the Year. After being assigned a new supervisor, things changed. The new supervisor used the most toxic racial epithets when discussing the young manager behind his back and treated him in a disparate and discriminatory manner. The new supervisor eventually fired the young man. Mr. Shoemaker gathered witnesses from across the country (California, Texas and South Carolina) and, serving as sole trial counsel against a multi-lawyer team from a large law firm, tried the case before a jury in United States District Court. The trial lasted for five days. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. Shoemaker's client in the amount of $620,000. Mr. Shoemaker successfully defended the company's attempts to reduce or dismiss the verdict post-trial.

  • Mr. Shoemaker represented the family of a 41 year old woman who died as a result of a physician's negligence. After a lengthy mediation, he obtained a settlement for the woman's family in the amount of $2.1 million dollars. The unique aspect of this recovery was that it occurred in a state which limited recovery for pain and suffering in medical cases to approximately $900,000, which the defendants readily agreed to pay. The decedent was a housewife and did not have substantial earnings, yet Mr. Shoemaker made use of a nationally renowned economics expert and obtained an additional settlement for economic damages (on which there was no limit) in the amount of approximately $1.2 million dollars for a total recovery of $2.1 million.

  • Mr. Shoemaker represented an executive in a False Claims Act case who was fired after reporting false claims submitted by his employer under a government contract. Mr. Shoemaker brought claims for a qui tam recovery as well as a claim for wrongful termination under the False Claims Act. As a result of the case, substantial sums were returned to the U.S. Treasury and Mr. Shoemaker's client received a substantial six figure recovery.

  • In another wage and hour case, Mr. Shoemaker represented a group of employees in a service business who did not receive overtime to which they were entitled. Mr. Shoemaker's clients obtained a recovery in excess of $240,000

  • Mr. Shoemaker represented a woman who was fired shortly after rebuffing a supervisor's sexual advances. He obtained a total recovery for his client in the amount of approximately $185,000.

  • Mr. Shoemaker has handled five hostile environment sexual harassment cases that have resulted in six-figure recoveries. He has handled several more that have resulted in recoveries between $50,000 and $100,000.

  • Mr. Shoemaker represented the family of a 37 year old man who was in an institution with severe depression and suicidal tendencies. Tragically, the man succeeded in killing himself. Mr. Shoemaker represented the man's family in a wrongful death action and obtained a significant six figure recovery for the man's wife and children.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Pages