Select Testimonials
-
Q:Best of the Best - David is a Brilliant & Genuine Advocate for Plaintiffs
A:
Like many people, I never imagined I would need the services of an employment attorney. And like many people who find themselves in that situation, I felt unsure of where to start my search for an attorney to help me navigate one of the most difficult times in my life.
Thankfully, I was referred to David by a friend and I am eternally grateful for that recommendation. I truly cannot say enough good things about David and his team. When you go through a difficult experience at work it can feel like your world is shattered, making it hard to remember that attorneys typically handle multiple cases at the same time. However, during all of my communications with David, he always made me feel like a priority - taking the time to listen and understand what was important to me. He also was great about proactively communicating and ensuring that I always knew the status of my case. In addition to possessing great client relations skills, David is also a really skilled attorney. I never had a doubt that he thought about my case from every angle and I was continuously impressed by his knowledge of multiple areas of employment law.
I truly could not imagine going through my experience being represented by anyone else. David is really one of the good guys. He is in this area of law because he is a believer in justice and helping people. If you are looking for a brilliant, sincere, and ethical employment attorney I would strongly recommend giving David a call.
-
Q:Wage and Non-Compete Case
A:
David represented me in a case that would ultimately decide my future. I found myself involved in what started out as a wage claim that quickly escalated into a countersuit over a non-compete. This suit had the potential cost me upwards of half a million dollars or more depending on the results of the case, as well as keeping me from working in the industry in which I have spent most of my career. My case spanned several years of work in multiple states. David’s skills as an attorney were second to none. He was able to fight back every claim filed against me throughout the 18 months it took to ultimately settle my case in Federal Court.
I would like to publicly thank David for taking the time to get to know me as an individual and not just another case. Having a true understanding of who I was as a person and believing in me all the way through gave me the strength I needed. David is very passionate about the law and representing employees. I would highly recommend him if you ever find yourself in a situation against an employer. I am now the owner of a growing small business which would not have been possible without the help of David and his firm. Thank you again, David!
-
Q:Professional Testing Accommodations Advocate
A:
Not everyone understands my disability. David took the time to understand my disability. David was a strong advocate for me when I felt deflated and defeated by the lack of choices I was facing. I knew that I could be successful on a professional test, and knew that the accommodations I sought were reasonable. When the testing entity refused my request for accommodations, I hired David. David's approach with the testing entity was helpful, and reasonable, and ultimately led to the approval of the accommodations I had requested.
David is a strong and professional advocate who understands the need and the purpose of disability accommodations.
-
Q:Supportive, Prompt, and Professional
A:
David was professional, and prompt, and provided helpful legal advice. I was looking to quickly speak with a lawyer who knows employment law. He listened to all of my questions the same day I contacted him, reviewed the information, and answered my questions the next day. I felt supported and confident about my situation after talking with David. I strongly recommend him to anyone who is seeking legal advice about an employment concern.
-
Q:Clarity, Confidence, and Integrity
A:
David brings impressive clarity and confidence to complicated circumstances with ease. He exhibits rich wisdom in the balance of logic and intuition. His sincere commitment and reliability are admirable. I am honored to have been represented by him and grateful for his tenacious perseverance for justice.
-
Q:Best Possible Choice I Could Have Made
A:
David is an excellent attorney! I spoke with 6 attorneys before meeting David. They were great attorneys but I am absolutely pleased I selected David to represent me in my wrongful termination case. He was absolutely professional and client-first the entire way. We ended up settling before the trial. I couldn't be happier to have this behind me. David is truly a class above the rest!!!!!
-
Q:Professional, confident and effective
A:
David took my case after it was rejected by other lawyers, which allowed me to feel my career was just as important as anyone else's. After facing tough discrimination in my field, David was confident in standing up for me and pushing for my rights. After tough negotiations, the parties settled, which I viewed as an admission of fault from my former employer, which is more satisfying than I could have asked for.
-
Q:Highly Recommended
A:
David did an amazing job with my case, which was an employment dispute and involved aspects of complex banking rules and regulations. He was able to quickly analyze and understand the subject matter that was much more complicated than a typical employment claim. I very much enjoyed working with him, and I would highly recommend him to anyone.
-
Q:I Highly Recommend David Schlesinger
A:
I connected with David through a family member when I found myself facing a difficult employment-related situation. This was my first experience hiring a lawyer for personal reasons. Upfront, I did not know what to expect. But David took the time to carefully listen and ask probing questions; I believe he truly understood my circumstances and priorities. He then gave me an honest assessment and laid out realistic options and a plan of action.
Upon my approval, David confidently worked on the plan, involving me as much as I desired in each step. His communication was direct and to the point -- there was no wasted time or effort, something I very much appreciated. He always responded promptly to my calls and e-mails, never leaving me sitting in the dark.
David's connections, skills, and persistence led to a very reasonable outcome in a timely fashion. I cannot recommend David highly enough.
-
Q:Employment Case
A:
I was blessed to work with David on my case. He believed in my case and assured me that I had a case. He pursued the employer and communicated to me every step of the way. He is firm in what he does. I saw the result of his belief in my case at the settlement. I highly recommend him for employment cases.
-
Q:Strong Legal Advocate
A:
With David Schlesinger’s professional expertise and skills, I had a strong advocate in a legal matter, a way to stand up for myself, and a way to be heard. David was accessible, communicated with courtesy and candor, kept me informed about the process, delineated the choices I faced, and allowed me to make informed decisions. I am so grateful that I was referred to him, and I highly recommend him as well.
Select Results
Sexual Harassment: Johnson et al. vs. Links on the Mississippi, Inc. and William C. Doebler, 82-cv-15-4079 (Minnesota’s Tenth Judicial District. 2017) (first chaired a trial in which 4 former employees and the state were awarded $150,000 on harassment and retaliation claims); Jenkins v. University of Minnesota and Ted Swem, 2013-cv-01548 (D. Minn. 2017) (second chaired jury trial in which graduate student prevailed on her sexual harassment claim against her harasser).
Minority Shareholder Rights: Second-chaired a jury trial in which our client was awarded $700,000 on minority shareholder claims (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2013); Garamella v. Intrepid U.S.A., et al. (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2007) (denial of employer’s motion for summary judgment on employee’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with contract).
Gender Discrimination: Cox v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Civ. No. 13-CV-1138, 2014 WL 2197031 (D. Minn. May 27, 2014) (denial of employer’s motion for summary judgment on equal pay act and Title VII claims); LaMont v. Independent School Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. May 16, 2012) (argued before the Minnesota Supreme Court, established a claim for hostile work environment prohibiting sex-based but non-sexual conduct under the Minnesota Human Rights Act); Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., --N.W.2d. ----, 2013 WL 2221487 (Minn. May 22, 2013) (counsel for amicus curiae Minnesota Chapter National Employment Lawyers Association).
Whistleblower: Wingate v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin County District Court (Co-first chaired a trial resulting in a $150,000 jury verdict for our client): Swanson v. State, 2009 WL 671039 (Minn. Ct. App. March 17, 2009) (reversal of summary judgment of employee’s whistleblower claim).
Successor Liability: Schwartz v. Virtucom, Inc., 2009 WL 1311816 (Minn. App. May 12, 2009) (trial and appellate victory for the employee in a successor liability claim); Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions, L.L.C., 711 F.3d 763, 764 (7th Cir. 2013) (counsel for Amicus Curiae National Employment Lawyers' Association in case establishing standard for successor liability under the FLSA).
Discrimination based on Religion: Haliye v. Celestica Corp., 717 F.Supp.2d 873 (D. Minn. 2010) (denial of employer’s motion for summary judgment of religious discrimination claims of twenty Muslim workers).
Non-compete: Schlief v. Nu-Source, Inc., 2011 WL 1560672 (D. Minn. April 25, 2011) (granting employee’s motion to dismiss employer’s non-complete and trade secret claims); Genesis 10 v. ValueWise, et al., (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2011) (denial of employer’s motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent employees from joining a new company).
Federal Railway Safety Act: Bertrang v. Wisconsin Cent., Ltd., Civ. No. 14-0133, 2014 WL 4199710 (D. Minn. Aug. 22, 2014) (granting motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) deposition).
Fair Labor Standards Act: Knaak v. Armour-Eckrich Meats, LLC, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1053 (D. Minn. 2014) (granting conditional certification and denying employer’s motion to dismiss breach of contract claim); Russell v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Inc., 721 F.Supp.2d 804 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (denial of decertification of employees’ off-the-clock claims at four call centers); Russell v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 575 F. Supp. 2d 930 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (granting conditional certification to call center employees); Bishop v. AT & T Corp., 256 F.R.D. 503 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (same); Hargrove v. Ryla Teleservices, Inc., 2012 WL 463442 (E.D. Va. February 13, 2012) (same); Robinson v. Ryla Teleservices, Inc., 2012 WL 505856 (S.D. Ala. January 19, 2012) (same); Swarthout v. Ryla Teleservices, Inc.,2011 WL 6152347 (N.D. Ind. December 12, 2011) (same).
.png "Best Lawyer - Schlesinger")
