Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 80 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
On February 22, 2012, a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.held that the EEOC must satisfy its investigation and good faith conciliation requirements under Title VII for each purported class member before bringing suit to maintain a Section 706 class action, as opposed to a pattern or practice action. The EEOC strongly disagrees with this approach because it will place significant burdens on the EEOC’s investigators to develop class-wide evidence to bring a class action. Practically, this may mean that the EEOC will continue to pursue on-site investigations to develop class action type evidence and subpoena broader information that most employers are willing to voluntarily (without a subpoena) provide in response to a single complainant EEOC charge.
A similar issue is pending before the Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. Cintas Corp. in which the EEOC is appealing the district court’s granting of summary judgment. Cintas successfully defeated the EEOC’s claims asserting, like the defendant in CRT, that the EEOC failed to exhaust administrative remdies on behalf of the named plaintiffs. This CRT decision will places more stringent requirements on the EEOC to investigate something that might hinder its systemic discrimination initiatives.
The EEOC also implemented its new strategic plan for 2012 through 2016 in February. The plan identifies stopping and remedying unlawful employment discrimination as its core mission. It further set strategic objectives of combating discrimination through strategic enforcement and education and outreach. In 2011, the EEOC filed 23 lawsuits alleging systemic discrimination, with each case involving 20 or more individuals. Those cases are 14% of the EEOC’s litigation docket. To date, the EEOC has had the most success in obtaining settlements based on allegations that employer’s attendance policies failed to accommodate disabled employees. The most recent settlement was against Verizon in which the EEOC and Verizon settled for $20 million.
The EEOC continues to aggressively pursue systemic discrimination in the workplace. What remains to be determined is how much work courts will make them put into these matters before the reach litigation.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.