Experience
Financial institutions support challenge to CFPB's Supervision and Examination ManualJones Day represented the Bank Policy Institute, America's Credit Unions, and the American Financial Services Association in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association's challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) 2022 revisions to its Supervision and Examination Manual. Atlas Air defeats mass-action litigation in federal court over its COVID-19 vaccine policiesJones Day successfully secured complete dismissal of a mass-action litigation brought against Atlas Air, Inc. and its senior executives challenging Atlas's COVID-19 policies. Wells Fargo achieves full dismissal with prejudice of systemic fair-lending litigationLocal governments asserting class-action style fair-lending claims concerning alleged residential mortgage practices voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice, noting that this dismissal is not the result of any settlement, against Jones Day client, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association affiliates. Christian, Hindu, and Jewish religious coalitions' arguments adopted by Eleventh Circuit enabling Buddhist association to build new religious facility in AlabamaJones Day filed a pro bono amici brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, on behalf of the Christian Legal Society, the Hindu American Foundation, and the Coalition for Jewish Values, under federal and state religious liberty laws, in support of the right of a Buddhist association to obtain zoning approval in Mobile, Alabama for its new worship facility. U.S. Chamber of Commerce successfully challenges SEC buybacks ruleJones Day successfully represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in challenging a rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission requiring public companies to disclose the reasons behind their decisions to engage in stock buybacks. Atlas Air prevails on religious discrimination and retaliation claims after hearing before Florida Commission on Human RelationsJones Day achieved a complete victory for Atlas Air., Inc. before Florida's Commission on Human Relations when, after a full-day evidentiary hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") in Florida's Division of Administrative Hearings ruled that Atlas did not discriminate against a pilot based on his religion or retaliate against him by implementing its COVID-19 vaccine policies. Multinational manufacturing firm receives full declination in federal forced labor and securities grand jury investigationJones Day successfully represented a publicly traded multinational manufacturing firm in a federal grand jury investigation into alleged forced labor and securities offenses related to its operations in China. Leading technology company successfully resolves DOJ temporary work visa-related matterJones Day represented a leading technology company in a successful settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, following an immigration-related employment investigation related to temporary work visas. Large logistics provider defeats DOJ immigration-related investigationJones Day obtained a declination by the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, following an investigation into alleged unfair immigration-related employment practices of its client, a large logistics provider. Telecommunications company engages with FCC rulemaking under Infrastructure ActJones Day represents a national telecommunications company in connection with the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rulemaking on digital discrimination under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Wells Fargo obtains summary judgment win against government in systemic fair-lending litigationJones Day’s client, several Wells Fargo Bank, National Association affiliates, obtained summary judgment on all claims asserting discriminatory residential mortgage practices brought by Cook County, Illinois (the “County”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. United Airlines defends COVID-19 vaccine policiesJones Day represents United Airlines, Inc. in putative class action and individual litigation involving Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other federal claims concerning its COVID-19 vaccine and accommodation policies in Colorado, Florida, and Texas federal court. The following represents experience acquired prior to joining Jones Day.
Achieved favorable settlement for global beverage company in cross-border purchase price adjustment arbitration.
Supervised personal jurisdiction litigation in federal district court that led to dismissal of financial services client from the case.
Member of jury trial team in product liability case involving talc product, which settled favorably.
Government Investigations and Litigation:
Martin Act: secured review and reversal by the New York Court of Appeals for client in case by the New York Attorney General under the Martin Act securities statute. Court held that, under existing law, claims were subject to a three-year, as opposed to six-year, statute of limitations. In August 2019, the New York governor signed legislation specifically addressed to this decision.
Other Attorneys General Matters: supervised securities investigations and related litigations by attorneys general of New Jersey and Virginia.
Other Governmental Securities Matters: participated in litigation defense of nationwide residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) matters for a global banking institution, including defense of government litigation brought by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
Delaware Representations:
Represented energy sector client in M&A litigation in Delaware Chancery Court involving corporate best efforts and corporate tax matters.
Represented aerostructures company in asset purchase contract dispute in summary judgment victory in Delaware Superior Court and recovery of full attorney's fees, which the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Matters:
United States v. Facebook, Inc. (OCAHO): oversaw investigation and December 2020 lawsuit for the United States against Facebook for alleged citizenship-status discrimination under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, against U.S. workers.
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., et al. (2d. Cir.) (en banc): orally argued for the United States (DOJ, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) as amicus before 12-judge en banc panel and briefed statutory interpretation and administrative law issues under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Preterm-Cleveland v. Acton (6th Cir.) (en banc): orally argued for the United States as amicus before 15-judge en banc panel concerning constitutionality of Ohio statute.
Fox v. Gaines (11th Cir.): submitted amicus brief on behalf of United States (DOJ, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) on issue of first impression in Eleventh Circuit: whether sexual harassment claims are actionable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). On July 16, 2021, three-judge panel unanimously agreed with the government's position, holding that sexual harassment — both hostile housing environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment — can be actionable under the FHA.
United States v. Roof (4th Cir.): supervised and assisted in drafting brief for the United States seeking affirmance of Dylann Roof's conviction and death sentence for his racially motivated mass murder of African American parishioners at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Appeal presented issues of competency, self-representation, and whether 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1), which criminalizes racially motivated violence, is constitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment. A three-judge panel sitting by designation on the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed Roof's conviction and sentence in August 2021.
United States v. Florida (11th Cir.): supervised and assisted in drafting opposition to petition for rehearing en banc defending position that the text of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act enables the U.S. Attorney General to sue to enforce its terms.
United States v. City of Venice (M.D. Fl.): initiated litigation for the United States and reached favorable Title VII settlement for a 30-year African American city employee in Florida subjected to racial discrimination.
Contributed to and appeared on certiorari-stage and merits-stage briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court at the Department of Justice, including in:
Peterson v. Linear Controls, Inc. (18-1401): argued in CVSG brief that, textually, the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" covered by Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII extend beyond hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and leave. Petition for certiorari was dismissed due to settlement. Subsequently, led effort by DOJ Civil Rights Division to advance position expressed in Peterson in U.S. courts of appeals nationwide.
Torres v. Madrid (19-292): argued in merits amicus brief that law enforcement's shooting of a subject who continues to flee constitutes a Fourth Amendment "seizure" based on the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the original understanding of that term. The Supreme Court agreed with that position, by a vote of 5-3, in a March 2021 opinion for the Court.
Hill v. United States (19-7778): argued, in opposition to petition for certiorari, for constitutionality under Commerce Clause of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act as applied to assault on the basis of LGBTQ status. The Supreme Court agreed with that recommendation to deny certiorari, thus leaving in force the Fourth Circuit's decision upholding the constitutionality of the conviction under the Shepard-Byrd Act.
Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru (19-267): argued in merits amicus brief that "ministerial exception" grounded in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment precluded employment claims against parochial elementary schools. The Supreme Court agreed with that position, by a vote of 7-2, in a July 2020 opinion for the Court.
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (19-968): argued in merits amicus brief that a claim for nominal damages based on past injury-in-fact is sufficient to support an Article III case or controversy, even where intervening events have rendered moot prospective equitable claims and there is no live request for compensatory damages. The Supreme Court agreed with that position, by a vote of 8-1, in a March 2021 opinion for the Court.
