Most plaintiffs' employment lawyers are all too familiar with the stinginess of the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), both in terms of the substantive protections that it offers, and the damages that it makes available. Like decaffeinated coffee or nonalcoholic beer, the FMLA can, at times, seem a bit too weak to get excited about. The unavailability of punitive or emotional distress damages under the FMLA is particularly frustrating, given the seemingly modest burdens that the law typically imposes on employers.

"They changed [the Fair Labor Standards Act] in a way that was probably thought to be pro-employer," he says. "Sometimes the language in the law has unintended consequences. It's amazing how often this occurs," he says.

During the course of her employment with the defendants, Ms. Viglianco, an attorney, was subjected to repeated insults and slurs concerning her national heritage. In addition, during her pregnancy, Ms. Viglianco was harassed by her supervisor, warned that she was required to return to work immediately after giving birth, and was assaulted and terminated by her supervisor when she inquired about disability benefits.Our client was awarded monetary damages after a three-day trial.

Ms. Peralta was granted summary judgment on a Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim. During the case, defendants admitted that they terminated Ms. Peralta from her employment solely because of her pregnancy.

Gibli v. Kadosh , 279 A.D.2d 235 (2000) (New York Law Journal; Class Action Reporter)

In this dental malpractice action, our client signed a release approximately one month after a surgical procedure that involved the extraction of a third molar. During that procedure, our client's lingual nerve was severed, causing permanent and irreparable parasthesia. The Appellate Division held that the validity of the release was for the jury to decide. After a five-day trial, our client received an unusually high verdict for a dental malpractice claim.