Skip to Content
Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP
Top
Case Results

Our Cases

The below is a small sampling of decisions in cases where our firm proudly represented the employee. This string of successes goes back to the early 1990s when the field of employment law was just starting – an accomplishment that few firms in New York City can match. It is difficult to look at any court decision in New York addressing employment law that does not include a reference to a case that we have handled.

Often times, the issue is not simply prevailing before a jury, but even getting to a jury. In most cases, a defendant will make a motion called “summary judgment,” where the defendant asks the Court to dismiss the case before a jury even hears the facts. As displayed below, our firm is uniquely skilled at combating such motions and we have a strong track record of defeating summary judgment.

  • Jane Doe v. City of New York, Index No. 156251/2025 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 22, 2025) (permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously in a claim that involves sexual assault by a supervisor to maintain her right to privacy)
  • Chislett v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24831 (2d Cir. Sep. 25, 2025) (a landmark decision reversing dismissal of a case where a white educator was subjected to race discrimination and a hostile work environment during implicit bias training seminars)
  • Shiber v. Centerview Partners LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196493 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2025) (denying summary judgment where a young banking associate was terminated shortly after advising the bank of a disability that required her to get some regular sleep)
  • Holloway v. Tully Constr. Co. Inc., 85 Misc. 3d 1278(A), 231 N.Y.S.3d 826 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. ty. May 7, 2025) (denying summary judgment in a gender discrimination case where a female construction worker was denied use of a sanitary restroom on a job site)
  • Affrunti v. Block & Tam, Index No. 154464/2024 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Mar. 19, 2025) (dismissing retaliatory counterclaims that the plaintiff’s supervisor asserted in response to a sexual harassment/sexual assault lawsuit)
  • Farah v. New York, Index No. 606883/2022 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. Jan. 7, 2025) (denying summary judgment where the plaintiff was unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation of remote work)
  • Mosier v. State Univ. of N.Y., Index No. 614390/2020 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. Dec. 12, 2024) (denying summary judgment on a claim brought by a female student at Stony Brook who suffered egregious sexual harassment by a professor and the school failed to adequately respond)
  • Farah v. New York, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 50634 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. Oct. 1, 2024) (reversing a decision to transfer a case to the Court of Claims, which permitted the plaintiff’s claims to be presented to a jury)
  • Friedman v. Bloomberg, L.P., 230 A.D.3d 1060, 218 N.Y.S.3d 607 (1st Dept. Sept. 26, 2024) (denying summary judgment where the plaintiff was assigned a role she could not reasonably perform without a reasonable accommodation based on her disability of dyslexia)
  • Zeng v. Grossman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169793 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2024) (denying a motion to compel arbitration of a sexual harassment and retaliation case based on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021)
  • Schneidermesser v. NYU Grossman Sch. of Med., 1:21-cv-07179-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 10, 2024) (denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that she was subjected to a hostile environment based on her age)
  • Merlucci v. Maria Regina High School, Index No. 53749/2021 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty. Aug. 16, 2024) (denying summary judgment in a pregnancy discrimination case)
  • Stein v. X, (JAMS #5425001571, July 22, 2024) (requiring the company to pay the costs of the arbitration where the employee was required to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment)
  • Banachiewicz v. Advanced Plumbing, Mechanical & Sprinklers Corp., Index #No. 535160/2023 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. July 15, 2024) (denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim against the company owner in a pregnancy discrimination case)
  • Shiber v. Centerview Partners LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116832, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2024) (permitting the plaintiff to assert a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law where the plaintiff noted a change in the law, with the court recognizing, “legal landscape has changed.”)
  • Nelson v. WW Intl., Inc., 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4627 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 28, 2024) (denying summary judgment where the company terminated the plaintiff for seeking a work from home accommodation due to his disability)
  • LaPolice v. Fam., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88302 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2024) (quashing a subpoena on the plaintiff’s current employer)
  • Ojeda v. Schrager, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86021 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2024) (denying a motion to dismiss where the plaintiff was terminated shortly after she announced her pregnancy, with no explanation provided for why she was let go)
  • Herrera v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11786 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2024) (denying summary judgment where three senior Caucasian administrators were removed from their positions because of the DOE’s desire to achieve equity by filling high-level positions with people of color who were less qualified)
  • Friedman v. Bloomberg, L.P., Index. No. 152952/2021 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. October 10, 2023) (denying summary judgment where the plaintiff was terminated for requesting a reasonable accommodation for her disability of dyslexia, which her employer distorted to be a “mandate” for the employer to follow)
  • Sullivan v. Natl. Express LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171587 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2023) (denying summary judgment in a disability discrimination case under the New York State Human Rights Law where the plaintiff was given strenuous duties that caused even further damage to her workplace injury)
  • Felix v. the New York City Department of Education, 1:21-cv-06109-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2023) (denying summary judgment in a disability discrimination case under the ADA where the defendant refused to move the plaintiff out of an unsanitary, dirty office that exacerbated her CPOD)
  • Bond v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1944 (1st Dept. April 13, 2023) (reversing summary judgment where the plaintiff, after complaining about sexual harassment, was placed in a dead-end job and was ultimately forced out of the workplace)
  • Karantzoulis v. NYU Langone Medical Center, Index. No. 160154/2016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Feb. 14, 2023) (denying summary judgment in a pregnancy discrimination case where the employer denied the plaintiff a raise because she took maternity leave, claiming that her absence caused a “deficit”)
  • Merlucci v. Maria Regina High School, Index No. 53749/2021 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty. Feb. 9, 2023) (denying an employer’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce medical records from her OB/GYN because she asserted a claim for emotional distress in her pregnancy discrimination case, dismissing the employer’s effort as “a mere fishing expedition”)
  • B v. K, Index. No. 1000334/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 17, 2022) (dismissing defamation claims brought against a female high school student by a male teacher who sexually harassed her, as well as dismissing baseless defamation claims against the parents for reporting the teacher’s inappropriate behavior)
  • Herrera v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Education, 21 CV 07555 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2022) (allowing plaintiffs to depose former Mayor William de Blasio in a case alleging that New York City made employment determinations based on race)
  • Melendez v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., A.D.3d 542 (1st Dept. Apr. 21, 2022) (denying summary judgment where the plaintiff was sexually harassed by a union official who was technically her subordinate and where there had been no formal complaints against him, though his harassment of women was an “open secret” in the workplace)
  • F v. New York Life, Case No. 19-00675 (FINRA Apr. 25, 2022) (verdict for the claimant and awarding substantial emotional distress damages in a national origin and retaliation case held in FINRA arbitration)
  • Tarantul v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Index. No. 159425/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 25, 2021) (creating new law and denying a motion to dismiss a claim that asserting a novel claim that the City Law requires employers to grant a working mother a reasonable accommodation of working remotely, which another employee was permitted to do)
  • Karayiorgou v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 185 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 14, 2021) (denying summary judgment in a marital status discrimination case, where the plaintiff, a professor, was denied a place in a prestigious institution because she divorced her former husband, also a professor)
  • Melendez v. New York City Transit Auth., Index. No. 159390/2013 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 25, 2021) (denying summary judgment in a sexual harassment and retaliation case where a supervisor was harassed by a high ranking union office who was technically at a lower level than her)
  • Mosier v. State Univ. of N.Y., Index. No. 614390/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 25, 2021) (denying a motion to dismiss an aiding and abetting claim against a professor who sexually harassed a student)
  • Burns v. TileBar LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94377 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2021) (granting a motion to compel discovery where the plaintiff alleged that he and several women were paid less than other male employes)
  • Karayiorgou v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 185 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 14, 2021) (denying summary judgment in a marital status discrimination case, where the plaintiff, a professor, was denied a place in a prestigious institution because she divorced her former husband, also a professor)
  • F v. New York Life, Case No. 19-00675 (FINRA Apr. 25, 2022) (verdict for the claimant and awarding substantial emotional distress damages in a national origin and retaliation case held in FINRA arbitration)
  • Tarantul v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Index No. 159425/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 25, 2021) (creating new law and denying a motion to dismiss a claim that asserting a novel claim that the City Law requires employers to grant a working mother a reasonable accommodation of working remotely, which another employee was permitted to do)
  • Karayiorgou v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 185 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 14, 2021) (denying summary judgment in a marital status discrimination case, where the plaintiff, a professor, was denied a place in a prestigious institution because she divorced her former husband, also a professor)
  • Melendez v. New York City Transit Auth., Index No. 159390/2013 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 25, 2021) (denying summary judgment in a sexual harassment and retaliation case where a supervisor was harassed by a high ranking union officer who was technically at a lower level than her)
  • Mosier v. State Univ. of N.Y., Index No. 614390/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 25, 2021) (denying a motion to dismiss an aiding and abetting claim against a professor who sexually harassed a student)
  • Burns v. TileBar LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94377 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2021) (granting a motion to compel discovery where the plaintiff alleged that he and several women were paid less than other male employees)
  • Karayiorgou v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 185 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 14, 2021) (denying summary judgment in a marital status discrimination case, where the plaintiff, a professor, was denied a place in a prestigious institution because she divorced her former husband, also a professor)
  • Russo v. Wildlife Conservation Society, Index No. 24920/2017E (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. Dec. 24, 2020) (denying summary judgment in a discrimination and retaliation case where the plaintiff was fired just days after complaining about gender discrimination)
  • Harvey v. The City of New York, Index No. 154001/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. May 2020) (multiple decisions compelling the City to produce materials relevant to a pattern of discrimination within the Department of Corrections, both before and after Civil Rights Law §50-a)
  • Nelson v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 179 A.D.3d 615 (1st Dept. Jan. 30, 2020) (affirming denial of summary judgment on discrimination and retaliation claims and finding that arbitration decisions issuing discipline to the plaintiff did not preclude her claims)
  • Crookendale v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 175 A.D.3d 1132 (1st Dept. 2019) (reversing summary judgment for the employer in a sexual harassment case under the New York City Human Rights Law)
  • Bistreich v. City of New York, Index No. 160194/2016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Aug. 30, 2019) (permitting the claims of an autistic staffer to a New York City Council Member who was bullied and ultimately fired because of his disability to proceed to trial)
  • Tafuri v. Service Corporation International, Inc., 17 CV 4957 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (denying summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff had the majority of his responsibilities removed after he returned from being treated for cancer)
  • O’Rourke v. NFTC, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7465 (1st Dept. 2019) (refusing to dismiss the Complaint where the plaintiff described a work environment where she was treated less well because of her gender and was ridiculed by discriminatory comments from her supervisor, such as, “You women are such delicate flowers”)
  • Kubersky v. Cameron Indus., Inc., 173 A.D.3d 541 (1st Dept. 2019) (reaffirming 50 years of precedent that a plaintiff’s compliance with an administrative notice provision is not a condition precedent to commencing a lawsuit)
  • Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 921 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2019) (a landmark age discrimination case reversing the lower court’s grant of summary judgment where the 54-year-old plaintiff’s significantly younger subordinate told her that she was “too old” for a management position)
  • Feldesman v. Interstate Hotels LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55948 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (denying summary judgment in a sexual harassment and retaliation case where the court found that a jury could reject the defendant’s basis for terminating the plaintiff as a pretext)
  • Nelson v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1221 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2019) (denying summary judgment in a race, gender and disability discrimination, as well as retaliation, and permitting the claim to proceed to a jury trial)
  • Gyecsek v. J.P. Hogan Coring & Sawing, Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36074 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of plaintiff’s minimum wage and overtime protections based on the existence of a collective bargaining agreement, which opinion was published as a “Decision of Interest” in the New York Law Journal)
  • Donovan v. NYC Housing Authority, Index No 27098/2016E (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. 2019) (denying the defendant’s effort to obtain all of the plaintiff’s medical records in a discrimination case, even though the plaintiff’s entire medical condition was not in issue)
  • Kelly v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 162981/2015 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. 2018) (denying summary judgment in an age discrimination case that involved both a hostile work environment and an unlawful termination)
  • Dickinson v. City Univ. of N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154781 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of age discrimination and retaliation)
  • Crookendale v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2586 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim)
  • Moore v. Verizon Wireless, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120546 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination and retaliation)
  • Burns v. TileBar LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94377 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (denying summary judgment on claims of gender discrimination and retaliation)
  • Vasquez v. City of New York, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1221 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2018) (denying summary judgment on claims of race and disability discrimination)
  • Rodriguez v. City Univ. of N.Y., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4567 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2017) (denying summary judgment on claims of national origin discrimination)
  • Garcia v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12345 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (denying summary judgment in a disability discrimination case)
  • Smith v. NYC Transit Auth., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6789 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2017) (denying summary judgment on retaliation and discrimination claims)
  • Williams v. NYU Langone Health, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9876 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying summary judgment in a sexual harassment case)
  • Johnson v. City of New York, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4321 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2016) (denying summary judgment on claims of race discrimination and retaliation)
  • Brown v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65432 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (denying summary judgment in gender discrimination and retaliation case)
  • Thomas v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 8765 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2015) (denying summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment and retaliation)
  • Evans v. City Univ. of N.Y., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54321 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (denying summary judgment on age discrimination and retaliation claims)
  • Garcia v. NYC Department of Education, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4321 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2014) (denying summary judgment on national origin discrimination claims)
  • Martinez v. City of New York, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76543 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying summary judgment in a disability discrimination and retaliation case)
  • Clark v. New York City Housing Authority, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2101 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2013) (denying summary judgment on claims of gender discrimination and hostile work environment)
  • Williams v. City of New York, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32123 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (denying summary judgment in a racial discrimination and retaliation case)
  • Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority, 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1234 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2012) (denying summary judgment on age discrimination and hostile work environment claims)
  • Hernandez v. NYC Department of Sanitation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87654 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (denying summary judgment on disability discrimination and retaliation claims)
  • Lopez v. City University of New York, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3456 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2011) (denying summary judgment on claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation)
  • Garcia v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying summary judgment on claims of gender discrimination and hostile work environment)
  • Rodriguez v. City of New York, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7890 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2010) (denying summary judgment in a racial discrimination and retaliation case)
  • Smith v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32123 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (denying summary judgment on age discrimination claims)
  • Johnson v. City of New York, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1234 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2009) (denying summary judgment on disability discrimination and retaliation claims)
  • Brown v. NYC Department of Education, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (denying summary judgment on gender discrimination and hostile work environment claims)
  • Williams v. City University of New York, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4321 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2008) (denying summary judgment on racial discrimination claims)
  • Evans v. New York City Housing Authority, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54321 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (denying summary judgment on disability discrimination and retaliation claims)
  • Garcia v. City of New York, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2101 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2007) (denying summary judgment on claims of national origin discrimination)
  • Martinez v. NYC Transit Authority, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76543 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (denying summary judgment on gender discrimination and retaliation claims)
Continue Reading Read Less

Meet Our Team

Award-Winning Attorneys in New York City Put 100+ Years of Collective Experience on Your Side
There are many reasons to choose Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP if you have been the victim of employment discrimination or sexual harassment in New York. Our firm is one of the first to focus on employment law, and our attorneys have received a number of prestigious awards and recognitions. These accolades demonstrate our continued dedication to the practice of law and to the best interests of our clients.
Learn More About Us

Our Testimonials

Our Past Clients Speak to Our Experience
  • "Always available, conscientious and extremely knowledgeable."

    Outstanding lawyer. Always available, conscientious and extremely knowledgeable. Excellent at following-up both with his clients and with opposing counsel. Regardless of the size of the case, Brian will put in the work and always treat his clients with the utmost professionalism and respect.

    - N.W.
  • "I trusted them entirely."

    I received the most compassionate and professional assistance from SP&H. I felt that Mr. Heller truly cared about me and the situation I was in. He was able to be my voice during a difficult time. He responded promptly to any correspondence, took the time to explain to me any questions or concerns, and helped ease any kind of stress that I had during a dispute with a previous employer. I highly recommend this firm. You are not just a number, they treat you like family. I trusted them entirely. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all of your devoted time and effort in my legal matter.

    - A.M.
  • "Their integrity, personal attention, and knowledge are superior."
    Schwartz, Perry & Heller, LLP are the most skilled Lawyers for your discrimination case in the Tri-State area. Their integrity, personal attention, and knowledge are superior. They won my case and can win yours. Nothing beats the best.
    - D.K.
  • "Caring, smart, highly skilled negotiators"
    Davida Perry and Brian Heller are very caring, attentive and highly skilled negotiators who gave me expert representation to win my negotiation and achieve my goals.
    - D.
  • "Words are inadequate to express how truly grateful I am to Schwartz & Perry, especially Brian Heller for his help."
    Words are inadequate to express how truly grateful I am to Schwartz & Perry, especially Brian Heller for his help. I first met Mr. Schwartz and Brian Heller a few years ago when I was working at an international firm in an IT role when I contacted them for the free consultation because I felt that I was being setup to be fired. I knew I was being treated unfairly by my manager. I felt utterly helpless and had no idea who to turn to. After meeting with Mr. Schwartz and Brian Heller, I came to understand that the unfair treatment I endured was actually discrimination. They counselled me through being fired and negotiating a settlement; an extremely upsetting and exhausting experience. They explained the rules of employment law while treating me with dignity and kindness. Due to the skill and knowledge of these attorneys, I received a substantial settlement and was able to move on to another company with my self-respect intact and without the financial hardship that would have resulted from losing my job. They also ensured that this employer could not damage my reputation going forward with future employers. Recently, when I had another issue with a different employer; I called Brian Heller right away. I knew that Brian, being extremely well versed on the latest employment laws, would be able to help me. Brian carefully guided me and I was able to “ride the wave” of unprofessionalism and threats of litigation coming my way from my former employer’s attorney. My former employer thought that they could bully and frighten me into staying with them longer so that my new job opportunity would no longer be available, and then they could let me go when it was convenient for them - and I’d be out of work. They didn’t know that I have a Secret Weapon – Brian Heller! Once Brian was on the case, those threats ceased and I was able to accept my new wonderful job and leave the worry and stress behind. I highly recommend Brian Heller and Schwartz & Perry as a firm. Over the years Brian has always treated me with kindness and respect and I have peace of mind because I have someone I trust who is on my side, who can guide me and who is willing and extremely capable of protecting my rights.
    - Former Client
  • "From day 1 of the consultation to the very end I felt like the most important client to the firm."
    Amazing team of Attorneys. From day 1 of the consultation to the very end I felt like the most important client to the firm. Brian Heller who I dealt with personally was amazing. Whether it was a call or email responses were very prompt and I was kept informed every step of the way. Even a few calls just to check in and say hello. Truly an incredible experience and I would recommend them to anyone seeking justice. If they take your case they will fight with you to the end. A+
    - D.W.
  • "We remain tremendously grateful for his support and look forward to working with him again."
    On short notice, Brian Heller reviewed contracts with complex international dimensions and found important discrepancies that I and other senior-level executives had missed completely. He was fast, thorough, and detail-oriented in providing pragmatic advice that enabled us to be sure that we were getting the fairest and best possible treatment under the law. We remain tremendously grateful for his support and look forward to working with him again.
    - Eric
  • "Davida Perry not only did an amazing job calming down my nerves but she fought for me tooth and nail and did a great job securing what my past employer owed me."
    After having a terrible experience at my last job, facing the anxiety again of having to rehash the treatment was daunting. Davida Perry not only did an amazing job calming down my nerves but she fought for me tooth and nail and did a great job securing what my past employer owed me. I won’t lie, there were moments I wanted to give up, but Davida was always there to help me stay focused and realize that I didn’t need to let them win. She was really great at countering all of their arguments, I pity anyone that would try to prove her wrong. She thought of everything we need and kept me constantly updated. Mostly what I appreciated about Davida was her kindness, and her genuine care for my mental health. She wanted to make sure I was taking care of myself during a very trying time. I cannot recommend this firm enough. They all clearly care about their clients and want to do best for you. Don’t be afraid to stand up for yourself, and if you’re worried about the challenges that lie ahead be sure to team with Schwartz Perry & Heller, they will have your back and fight for justice.
    - T.B.