Bradley Arant Boult Cummings



Labor and employment

Headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, Bradley has grown into a leading legal institution throughout the Southeastern US, enjoying increased market share through an ever-expanding footprint and a strategic recruiting process that has allowed it to go from strength to strength. Offering a broad range of services on offer even in the litigation capacity, Bradley has also emerged as a prominent contender in the labor and employment practice, representing several management-side key players in the region as clients.
     Birmingham’s John Smith represents regional grocery chain Winn-Dixie against claims that a plaintiff was terminated from her position because of her pregnancy. The plaintiff took a leave of absence in order to have a baby and called the store manager about returning to work. There was conflicting evidence about these communications and the plaintiff’s desire to return to work. The grocery store concluded that she did not want to return and ended her employment. The case was tried in front of a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Winn-Dixie. The verdict was affirmed at the 11th Circuit.
     Mary Clay Morgan, operating from the firm’s Jackson, Mississippi office, represented the defendant, a hospital, in Americans with Disability Act claims brought by the US Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a nurse formerly employed by the hospital. The EEOC claimed that the hospital failed to accommodate the nurse’s temporary work restrictions when she returned to work after taking medical leave for a shoulder surgery. The EEOC aggressively sought extensive changes to the hospital’s policies and procedures, in addition to money damages on behalf of the individual employee. Morgan litigated the case through discovery and summary judgment, succeeded in limiting the testimony of one of the EEOC’s experts, and negotiated a consent decree to resolve the case on favorable terms shortly before trial. Morgan also represents a medical technology supplier based in Maryland as a defendant in a competitive tort lawsuit filed by another medical technology company in federal court in Mississippi. The plaintiff claims the firm’s client acted in concert with a co-defendant to hire the plaintiff’s employees in violation of non-competition agreements. The plaintiff seeks millions of dollars in recovery for alleged tortious interference with contracts between the plaintiff and the largest hospital system in Mississippi. The claims involve unique theories of liability implicating international transactions, as many of the employees at issue live in India, are employed by Indian companies, and entered into non-compete agreements in India, where those agreements are likely not enforceable.