The homepage of Weinhaus and Potashnick - Wage and Hour Attorneys Wage and Hour Claims, Unpaid Overtime, Off the Clock Work, Log on and prepatory work, Misclassification of job, denial of health insurance, unpaid job expenses, copyright - name and image infringement, No notice of layoff Failure to pay minimum wage Our wage and hour attorneys Recovery of unpaid overtime wages and other wage and hour claim verdicts Contact Weinhaus and Potashnick law firm Legal disclaimer

 
  The results of Weinhaus & Potashnick speak for themselves:*
 
 

Recovered unpaid wages (pending court approval) for classes of pizza delivery drivers who suffered minimum wage violations because their employers failed to fully reimburse their automobile expenses incurred on the job.

Recovered unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages for a class of 594 customer service representatives. The class representative alleged the employer required employees to work without pay (“off-the-clock”) in logging on to computer systems and programs, reading company materials, competing customer service calls and logging off from the computer systems and programs. Wolfert v. UnitedHealth Group, et al., Case No. 4:08CV01643 (TIA) (E.D. Mo. 2009).

Obtained a court order reinstating the health, dental, vision and prescription drug benefits to a class of disabled persons. Recognizing the value of such reinstatement, the court awarded $454,431.75 in attorney’s fees and $10,689.45 in recovery of litigation costs advanced. Halbach & Schield v. Great-West Life Insurance & Annuity Co., et al., Case No. 4:05CV02399 (ERW) (E.D. Mo. 2007).

Obtained relief for a class of employees terminated without receipt of WARN Act notices. Teamsters Local 604, et al. v. Inter-Rail Transport, Inc., Case No. 02-1109-DRH (S.D. Ill. 2004)

Obtained a $1,106,000.00 jury verdict in a claim for sexual harassment with no witness corroboration of the harassment. Flotron v. AdOne Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 07CC-000373 (Cir. Ct. of St. L. County, MO 2008)

Obtained a $1,006,400.00 jury verdict in a claim of wrongful termination when a recycling company fired its trucking foreman for refusal to violate the Department of Transportation’s maximum hour regulations. Williams v. Omaha Paper Stock, Inc., Case No. 062-888-1 (Cir. Ct. of City of St. L., MO 2007)

Obtained jury verdicts totaling $245,000.00 in two related sexual harassment claims. The court awarded an additional $71,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. Coats & Harrold v. Premier Mortgage Funding, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2611 G CV (Cir. Ct. of St. L. County, MO 2007).

Obtained jury verdict totaling $152,000.00 in racial harassment claims when plaintiff’s four fact witnesses were greatly outnumbered by twelve defense witnesses. Case involved racial slurs and hanging African-American doll by noose in workplace. Robinson vs. Custom Tree & Lawn Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:08CV00992 (CAS) (E.D. Mo. 2010).

Obtained settlements totaling $265,000.00 in claims for diversion of corporate assets and misuse of bankruptcy process. Sosne vs. Neumann, et al., Case No. 09-04084 (E.D. Mo. Bkrptcy. 2009).

Obtained several orders reinstating the health, disability and retirement benefits of many claimants. See, e.g., Halbach & Schield v. Great-West Life Insurance & Annuity Co., et al., Case No. 4:05CV02399 (ERW) (E.D. Mo. 2009) (class reinstatement); Michael v. AIG, et al., Case No. 4:05CV02400 (ERW) (W.D. Mo. 2008); Wakefield v. Accor Economy Lodging, et al., Case No. 03-309 (S.D. Ill. 2005).

Obtained millions of dollars for its clients through settlements of employment claims. (confidential settlements).
At a prior firm, Mark Potashnick of Weinhaus & Potashnick was instrumental in recovering $2,300,000.00 for a class of employees who lost benefits as a result of an early retirement plan which violated the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. Goldman & Smith, et al. v. General Dynamics, Case No. 4:95CV1452 (TCM) (1996).

At a prior firm, Mark Potashnick of Weinhaus & Potashnick obtained a bankruptcy court order temporarily reinstating the employment of forty truck drivers. In re Valley Steel Products Co., Case No. 92-40778 (E.D. Mo. Bkrptcy. 1992).

Mark was apparently instrumental in preventing a corporate merger which would have violated federal bankruptcy law and resulted in a 17.5% wage reduction for about 3,000 truck drivers around the United States and Canada. Automobile Transport Chauffeurs Demonstrators and Helpers Union, Teamsters Local 604 & Warner v. Allied Holdings, Inc., et al., Adversary Case No. 07-06695 (N.D. Ga. Bkrptcy. 2008) and In re Performance Transportation Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-04746 (MJK) (W.D.N.Y. Bkrptcy. 2008).

Mark forced arbitration by a recalcitrant car dealer, then recovered unpaid sales commissions and benefits for 26 automobile sales representatives. Teamsters Local 604 v. Feld Chevrolet Company, Case No. 4:06CV01368 (ERW) (E.D. Mo. 2006) & subsequent arbitration (2006).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

Other Selected Cases:*

• Banks vs. Jack-in-the-Box, Case No. 09SL-CC03441 (Cir. Ct. of St. L. County, MO 2010) (termination based on perceived pregnancy complications).
• Bengana v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 4:07CV00910 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo.) (violation of Family and Medical Leave Act)
• Bowers, et al. v. EMI Capitol Records, et al., Case No. 4:06CV01557 (RWS) (E.D. Mo.) (copyright infringement)
• Burks vs. Elder Helpers, Case No. 0822-CC07287 (Cir. Ct. of City of St. L. MO 2010) (knowingly subjecting home health care worker to sexual predator).
• Cornett v. Tanner Seed, et al., Case No. 1:96CV00021 (ERW) (E.D. Mo.) (violation of Violence Against Women Act)
• Covington v. J.C. Penny Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:04CV00329 (SNL) (E.D. Mo.) (misappropriation of image for commercial use)
• Covington v. L’oreal U.S.A., et al., Case No. 022-9430 (Cir. Ct. of City of St. L., MO) (breach of contract & misappropriation of image for commercial use)
• Crocker v. KV Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 4:09CV0019 (CEJ) (breach of fiduciary duty by misuse of employee stock ownership funds)
• Davis v. Anheuser-Busch Employees’ Credit Union, Case No. 4:05CV00146 (CEJ) (violation of Family and Medical Leave Act)
• Doe v. Prudential, Case No. 4:10-CV-00297 (CDP) (denial of disability benefits to attorney unable to perform occupation due to brain injury)
• E.W. vs. Ferguson Florissant School District, et al., Case No. 09SL-CC00728 (Cir. Ct. of St. L. County, MO) (middle school student molested by teacher)
• Goodspeed v. CNA Group Life Insurance Co., Case No. 4:02CV01961 (RWS)
(E.D. Mo.) (wrongful denial of disability benefits)
• Deleon v. Applebee’s International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06CV00149-GPM-PMF (S.D. Ill.) (racial harassment in employment)
• Gallegos, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al., Case No. 4:07CV00002 (SNL)
(E.D. Mo.) (wrongful denial of employee benefit plan documents)
• Garfinkel v. BJC Health System, et al., Case No. 4:07CV00005 (CAS) (E.D. Mo.) (wrongful denial of employee death benefits)
• Havener, et al. v. Power Screen USB, et al., Case No. 4:94CV02277 (JCH) (wrongful termination and workplace harassment based on sex, age and disability)
• Harris, et al. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 07BA-CV3803 (Cir. Ct. of Boone County, MO) (racial and sexual harassment in employment).
• Hutton v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., et al., Case No. 04CC-003062 (Cir. Ct. of St.
L. County, MO) (sexual harassment)
• Kennedy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 4:02CV00183 (TCM) (E.D. Mo.) (wrongful denial of disability benefits)
• Jordan v. Van Lenhardt, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05CV00767-WDS-CJP (wrongful denial of public accommodation based on race)
• Menz v. Procter & Gamble Health Care Plan, et al., Case No. 4:04CV00077 (RWS) (E.D. Mo.) (wrongful denial of prosthesis)
• Michael v. AIG, et al., Case No. 4:05CV02400 (ERW) (E.D. Mo.) (wrongful denial of disability benefits)
• Moore v. St. Louis Composting, Inc., Case No. 08SL-CC02852 (Cir. Ct. of St. L. County, MO) (denied employee use of “whites only” restroom)
• Niethammer v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 4:06CV01664 (CDP) (E.D. Mo.) (wrongful denial of disability benefits)
• Null v. Webster Groves School District, Case No. 09SL-CC03340 (sexual harassment)
• Simms vs. Fontana Distribution, et al, Case No. 4:09CV00017 (AGF) (copyright infringement)
• Sorbello vs. Chuck E. Cheese, Case No. 09SL-CC01916 (Cir. Ct. of St. L. County, MO 2010) (groping of young female customer by costumed employee).
• Sosne vs. Neumann, et al., Case No. 09-04084 (E.D. Mo. Bkrptcy. 2010) (diversion of corporate assets and misuse of bankruptcy process )
• Turner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., Case No. 4:04CV01688 (SNL) (E.D. Mo.) (wrongful termination based on employee’s refusal to waive rights to litigate against employer)
• Ragland v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05CV02398 (FRB) (copyright infringement)
• Simms vs. Fontana Distribution, et al, Case No. 4:09CV00017 (AGF) (copyright infringement)
• Teamsters Local 604, et al. v. Inter-Rail Transport Co., Case No. 3:02CV01109-DRH-CJP (S.D. Ill.) (violation of WARN Act through failure to provide notice of facility closure)
• Teamsters Local 604, et al. v. Allied Holdings, Inc., et al., Adversary Case No. 07-06695 (N.D. Ga. Bkrptcy. 2008) and In re Performance Transportation Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-04746 (MJK) (W.D.N.Y. Bkrptcy. 2008) (apparently prevented threatened violation of bankruptcy law which would have resulted in 17.5% wage decrease to about 3,000 truck drivers in U.S. and Canada)
• Wakefield v. Accor Economy Lodging, et al., Case No. 03-309 (S.D. Ill. 2005) (wrongful denial of health insurance and failure to provide notice of continuing insurance rights)
• Ward v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 4:04CV670 (ERW) (wrongful denial of disability benefits)
• Watson v. Retirement Plan for Hourly Employees of International Paper Co., Case No. 4:02CV01164 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo.) (violation of employee’s rights against unlawful subjection to lie detector test)
• Williams v. Omaha Paper Stock, Inc., Case No. 062-888-1 (Cir. Ct. of City of St. L., MO 2007) (termination in violation of public policy)

* Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.