Cases Handled by Schwartz Perry & Heller

March 5, 2014- Brian Heller and Davida Perry of Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP won a $1.3 million jury verdict against UPS in a sexual harassment trial. Our client had been subject to repeated acts of sexual harassment at UPS, and retained Schwartz & Perry to represent her. After a five week trial, the jury awarded our client compensatory and punitive damages.

Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP is proud to announce that, on January 25, 2013, a jury, after two days of deliberation, returned a verdict in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in favor of our client on her retaliation claim against her employer awarding $200,000 for emotional distress and $ 1 million in punitive damages. The case was tried by Schwartz & Perry attorneys Brian Heller and Matthew T. Schatz. The plaintiff alleged that after she complained about sexual harassment, she was stripped of job responsibilities and punished for her complaint.

April 14, 2011 - Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP recently completed another trial in Supreme Court, New York County, in which we represented three former employees in an action involving their former employer in which our clients prevailed in every respect. This favorable verdict was the second occasion in less than one month in which our clients fully prevailed by securing a jury verdict after trial. We are pleased at our good fortune on behalf of our clients.

March 30, 2011 - It is always a joy to obtain a Decision which is totally in favor of your client. It is even more joyful when that Decision is, in part, based upon one of your own cases. That makes the result even more significant. We are delighted that this has just occurred with regard to one of our cases, Azevedo et al. v. Gateway Frontline Services, Inc. (109316/09), in which our clients assert race and national origin discrimination, as well as retaliation claims.

In Azevedo et al., the Court denied the motion made to dismiss the case, and cited to another one of our cases, Hughes v. UPS, to support its decision to deny the motion. We believe the language of the decision in the recently decided Azevedo case has significance, not only because it provided a result completely in favor of the plaintiffs, but because the language of the Decision in favor of the plaintiffs, could effectively be employed by others involved in a similar motion. It is for that reason that we thought it might prove helpful to share this Decision with our colleagues.

On Monday, February 14, 2011, following a six-day trial in the New York County Supreme Court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client, after less than a day of deliberation. The verdict was awarded for financial and emotional damages. The jury found that our client's pregnancy was a motivating factor in her former employer's decision to terminate her only three weeks after she announced that she was pregnant. The case was tried by partners Davida S. Perry and Brian Heller along with associate.

We are pleased to announce that on June 30, 2010, the New York County Supreme Court granted our request to depose the most senior officer of the Defendant corporation in a litigation brought by one of our clients for age discrimination. The Defendant attempted to invoke a provision of the CPLR and Murray Schwartz and Matthew Schatz successfully argued that the provision invoked did not apply to the circumstances in this case. We are pleased that our efforts on behalf of our client were successful.

Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP prevailed against a motion by Defendant seeking dismissal of a claim for pregnancy discrimination brought by a Schwartz & Perry client. The plaintiff, was terminated just 23 days after informing her employer that she was pregnant. The employer made a motion seeking dismissal of the case, claiming that she was fired for performance reasons. The Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had successfully established that a jury could find the company's performance argument to be a pretext for unlawful pregnancy discrimination. We are pleased to share this success with our colleagues and friends.

We are pleased to announce that on July 9, 2009, the New York County Supreme Court denied summary judgment in a perceived disability and retaliation case called Smallen v. New York University. In this case, where the plaintiff alleged that her supervisor made disparaging remarks about her after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and then demoted her, the case should be heard by a jury. We are delighted that our efforts on behalf of our client assisted in making that possible.

We are pleased to share a favorable decision from the 2nd Circuit regarding Sexual Harassment claims under the New York City Human Rights Law. The case is Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, Inc. ( Docket No.: 11-3361-cv).