Our Successes
Since Horowitz Law Group’s formation in 2015, our top-shelf work product continues to achieve big firm results, at a reduced cost for our clients. Here are a few of our recent successes:
Winning Litigations
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (2021). We obtained dismissal of a lawsuit, at the pleading stage, that charged our client with creating a hostile work environment in violation of the New York State and City Human Rights Law. Our client provides on-site testing services for employers who are subject to Department of Transportation rules and regulations. As such, the complaint alleged that our client employed an individual who was responsible for periodically collecting urine specimens from the plaintiff. The complaint also alleged that this individual stared at the plaintiff’s private parts while collecting the specimens, and made obscene gestures and offensive comments. As part of our defense, we argued that the method of collection was expressly sanctioned by the Department of Transportation’s guidelines. We also argued that the plaintiff’s allegations concerning gestures and comments, even if true, did not rise to a level of actionable harassment. The trial court agreed with our analysis, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against our client in their entirety.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Richmond County (2021). We successfully collected on a multi-million dollar lien in connection with an environmental remediation project undertaken by one of the Firm’s construction clients.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County (2021). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that our client violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) by failing to provide adequate personal protective equipment during the Covid pandemic. During the initial stages of the discovery process, we dug for all of the facts that showed our client took all steps necessary to shield its employees from unnecessary risks of exposure to Covid. Thereafter, we filed a successful motion to dismiss the entire case, with prejudice.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York (2021). This case involved a union employee who was subject to a Last Chance Agreement (LCA) as the result of a positive drug test for marijuana. After signing the LCA, the employee again tested positive for marijuana and was discharged. Thereafter, the employee’s union attempted to arbitrate the discharge in New York – when our client’s business is located in New Jersey. In response, we filed for and obtained a preliminary injunction of the arbitration from the New York federal district court, which then transferred the case to the New Jersey federal district court for final disposition. (See below).
United States District Court, District of New Jersey (2022). Once the case was transferred to the New Jersey federal district court, we immediately filed for and obtained summary judgment permanently barring the union from arbitrating this former employee’s discharge.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County (2020). We obtained dismissal of the complaint, which alleged that our client engaged in age and disability discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) when it terminated plaintiff's employment due to his physical inability to perform the job. The plaintiff worked as a route truck delivery driver – which required him to lift cases of wine and spirits weighing between 35 and 50 pounds each, stack them five (5) high on a hand-truck, and then push and pull the hand-truck over curbs and up staircases, in order to deliver the product to customers. The plaintiff claimed that he was physically qualified for this job, but was nevertheless terminated.
We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, at the pleading stage, arguing that the plaintiff was attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court, and that the proper remedy was dismissal of the complaint, with prejudice. As part of our motion, we introduced three (3) Orders from New Jersey’s Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Division”), which declared that the plaintiff had sustained the permanent lost use of approximately 50% of his body, based in part on the plaintiff’s sworn testimony that he could not comfortably lift more than 5 pounds. We further argued, based on statutory law, that the Division’s Orders carry the same weight as Orders of the Law Division. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County (2020). We obtained dismissal of the complaint, which sought several million dollars in damages against our clients for the alleged breach of a joint venture agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and fraud. The plaintiff contractor claimed that it entered into a verbal joint venture agreement with our client, also a contractor, to construct one-half of a multi-million dollar mixed-use construction project in Essex County, New Jersey. To support its claim, the plaintiff relied upon numerous documents that had been generated by the parties, which referred to their “joint venture” and/or “joint venture partnership”. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of discovery, the trial court granted our summary judgment motion, in its entirety, and dismissed the lawsuit. When the plaintiff appealed, New Jersey's Appellate Division and Supreme Court both affirmed the trial court’s decision. As part of our litigation strategy, we obtained deposition and affidavit testimony from the project's developers, which proved critical.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County (2020). We represented the plaintiff in this matter, and obtained a judgment against both the corporate and individual defendants, in excess of $9,800,000, after alleging breach of contract, fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Specifically, our client constructed an assisted living facility, and had contracted with the corporate defendant to provide furnishings and certain merchandise for the facility. We alleged that the corporate defendant, as well as the individual defendants who purportedly owned and/or managed the corporate entity, had not only breached the contract, but had engaged in a scheme to defraud our client. After filing for a temporary restraining order and litigating a series of motions, we obtained this seven-figure judgment against all defendants, both jointly and severally.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (2020). Plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging, among other things, that he was terminated due to his alleged disability under New York State and New York City's Human Rights Laws. Plaintiff also filed for arbitration, claiming that our corporate client breached the members’ Operating Agreement by failing to buy-out plaintiff’s ownership interest in the company at the correct price. We filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and then entered into a stipulation dismissing several of plaintiff’s claims in the case. Shortly thereafter, we negotiated a resolution of both the civil action and arbitration, whereby our client agreed to pay approximately the same price it had initially offered to purchase the plaintiff’s ownership interest.
Winning Arbitrations
In 2021 and 2022, we prevailed in every labor arbitration the Firm handled. Here is a quick summary of the decisions that were published on Lexis:
1) 2021 AAA Lexis 252 (Weinstock). The grievance alleged that our client violated the vacation scheduling provisions of the parties’ recently negotiated labor agreement. Arbitrator Weinstock agreed with our argument that the grievance was untimely filed and dismissed the grievance in its entirety.
2) 2022 AAA Lexis 254 (Nadelbach). The grievance challenged the discharge of an employee for falsifying an FDA-required logbook. The union argued that the employee had merely made a mistake which did not justify termination. Arbitrator Nadelbach rejected our timeliness argument, but agreed with our contention that the factual record showed the employee had intentionally falsified the logbook, in concert with two co-workers. As such, the grievance was denied in its entirety.
3) 2022 AAA Lexis 153 (Edelman). This grievance also challenged the discharge of an employee for falsifying an FDA logbook. The union again argued that the employee merely made a mistake. Unlike Arbitrator Nadelbach, Arbitrator Edelman agreed with our contention that the grievance was untimely filed and dismissed the grievance in its entirety.
Successful Collective Bargaining
In 2021 and 2022, we acted as our unionized clients’ Chief Spokesperson in labor contract negotiations with their various unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers Union, the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. None of our clients experienced a work stoppage!
Based on our decades-long relationships with union leaders across the country, our attorneys have successfully negotiated collective bargaining agreements with unions located at client sites throughout the country, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.
Winning At The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
In Case No. 02-CB-298980, we filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) Charge at Region 2 (the Manhattan Regional Office) of the NLRB, alleging that the union violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to sign the parties’ most recent fully conformed collective bargaining agreement. Among other things, the union contended that it met its legal obligations by signing a Memorandum of Agreement. After extensive discussion between our Firm and Region 2, the NLRB ultimately determined that our client’s Charge was meritorious and issued a Complaint against the union.
The case was tried in March 2023 before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On May 3, 2023, the ALJ rendered his Decision, finding that the union had unlawfully refused to execute the parties’ fully conformed collective bargaining agreement. The ALJ ordered the union to sign the fully conformed agreement and to post a government Notice at the union’s offices stating that the union violated federal labor law.
Seamless Acquisition Of A Unionized Facility
In 2022, one of our clients, a publicly traded manufacturer, entered into an agreement to purchase the assets of a unionized production operation. Immediately upon being retained, we obtained the incumbent union’s agreement to engage in “exploratory bargaining” for purposes of pre-negotiating a collective bargaining agreement that would take effect when the purchase closed. Our goal was to avoid negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, post-closing, when the union could strike our client at any time in support of its contract demands. Long story short, we successfully negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement that the union ratified prior to our client’s first day of operations at the facility, and our client was able to smoothly transition the business, with a no-strike clause in effect on Day One.
In a separate client matter, the Firm was not retained until after the client had purchased the assets of a business, and failed to hire most of the seller’s unionized employees. As a result, the incumbent union, Local 32BJ in New York, filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charges at Region 29 of the NLRB alleging our client unlawfully refused to hire the seller’s employees because of their union membership, and unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain with Local 32BJ. This meant our client faced substantial potential backpay liability, and could have been ordered by the NLRB to extend job offers to all of the seller’s employees. However, because of the Firm’s good working relationship with Local 32BJ, we were able to negotiate a long-term collective bargaining agreement at below-industry wage rates, and our client was able to retain its existing workforce.