Alexander V.Maugeri

Expérience

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.