The officer, only six months out of field training, responded to a call about two men fighting. When he arrived on the scene, he found one individual lying on the ground incapacitated and another individual sitting in his truck nearby. As the officer investigated, the individual in the truck walked over to the individual on the ground and kicked him in the head. Although an internal police investigation found that the officer had done nothing wrong, the State prosecuted him for reckless endangerment on the theory that he had a duty to prevent the kick. The trial court found the officer guilty, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed. 

Silverman Thompson appellate specialist Todd Hesel petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland to take the case, arguing that the officer had no legal duty to prevent the unexpected assault and that the State failed to prove the officer’s inaction was a “gross departure” from what a reasonable, similarly situated police officer would have done.

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Booth, agreed with the Silverman Thompson appellate team that the officer had no legal duty to prevent the kick. 

First, the court concluded that a duty to prevent a spontaneous and unforeseeable assault by one member of the public on another was not among the common law duties traditionally imposed upon law enforcement officers. 

Next, the court found that the police department policy statements relied upon by the prosecution reflected only general goals and did not impose a specific duty to act in the circumstances presented.

Finally, there was no “special relationship” giving rise to duty to protect, as the State argued, because the incapacitated individual was not in the officer’s custody at the time of the kick.

Read the Supreme Court of Maryland’s opinion here:  https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2025/13a24.pdf

Contact Our Appellate Specialist

If you need assistance with an appellate matter, Todd Hesel can be reached at thesel@silvermanthompson.com or 443-895-4195.

Our client was tried by jury in September 2022 with murder and other charges related to an alleged shooting.  After several days of deliberations, the jury told the court that it was unanimous on one count but unable to agree on others.  The court, at the State’s request, accepted the partial verdict.

Background on the Initial Trial

In open court, the foreperson announced a verdict of not guilty on second-degree murder, which was then confirmed by all twelve jurors in a poll.  The State then argued that the verdict was inconsistent with the directions on the verdict sheet and asked that the jury be sent back to resume deliberations.  The trial court agreed to the request, and after further deliberations failed to yield any verdict, the court granted the State’s request for a mistrial on all counts.

When the State sought to re-prosecute Silverman Thompson’s client, trial counsel Creston Smith moved to dismiss the murder charges as barred by double jeopardy, arguing that the jury had returned a valid acquittal on second-degree murder and that the verdict further required an acquittal on first-degree murder.  The trial court denied the motion, leading Mr. Smith’s team to file an interlocutory appeal.

Appealing the Mistrial

On appeal, Mr. Smith teamed with his colleague Todd Hesel, an appellate specialist, to argue that the foreperson’s announcement of an acquittal on second-degree murder, coupled with the confirmation of that verdict by polling all 12 jurors, constituted a final verdict that the trial judge had no discretion to reject. Thus, there was no valid basis for the trial court to declare a mistrial on the second-degree murder charge. 

Additionally, because the jury could not have acquitted our client of second-degree murder without necessarily finding that he was not guilty of first-degree murder, our client could not be retried on that charge either. 

The Appellate Court agreed in full with Creston Smith and Todd Hesel’s arguments and held that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause barred their client from being retried for first- or second-degree murder.

Read the opinion here: https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/1689s23.pdf 

Contact Our Appeals and Criminal Defense Teams

For assistance with an appellate matter, contact Todd Hesel at thesel@silvermanthompson.com or 443-895-4195

For assistance with a criminal matter, contact Creston Smith at csmith@silvermanthompson.com or 410-385-9100

$7.5 Million Settlement in Catastrophic Motorcycle Collision 

In June 2025, Silverman Thompson successfully resolved a catastrophic motorcycle collision case for $7,500,000. 

The case involved a motorcyclist who suffered life-altering injuries after being struck by a vehicle. The magnitude of the settlement reflects the severity of the client’s condition and the need for lifelong care, services, and equipment. The resolution ensures that the client will have access to the support and care he needs to manage the devastating aftermath of the collision. 

$1.75 Million Settlement in Tragic Construction Site Fatality 

Silverman Thompson also obtained justice for the grieving family of a 22-year-old construction worker who was tragically killed on the job. 

On July 12, 2023, the worker was part of a paving crew on Falls Road in the Hampden neighborhood of Baltimore City. While placing a temporary line on a newly paved portion of the roadway, he was run over by a 9,000-pound compacting asphalt roller. The heavy equipment, operated by an untrained and unqualified coworker, backed over him starting at his feet and continuing until his skull was crushed. He was pronounced dead at the scene. 

Following a detailed investigation, Silverman Thompson discovered multiple safety violations. The roller lacked a functioning backup alarm, horn, visual strobe, and an owner’s manual. The equipment had been rented to the victim’s employer, who failed to follow basic safety standards. 

The case was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and litigated for over a year. On behalf of the victim’s parents, the firm brought claims for wrongful death and a survival action based on the young man’s conscious pain and suffering. The matter was resolved during private mediation three months before trial for $1,750,000: a fantastic result given Maryland’s unfair cap on non-economic damages. 

News coverage of the incident: 

• WBAL 
• WMAR2 News 
• The Baltimore Banner 
• Fox Baltimore 
• WBAL-TV

About Our Personal Injury Team 

Silverman Thompson’s personal injury team is known for handling the most serious injury and wrongful death cases throughout Maryland and the mid-Atlantic. Our attorneys bring decades of litigation experience, an aggressive approach to discovery and trial, and a compassionate dedication to helping families rebuild after tragedy. 

If you or someone you love has suffered a serious injury due to another’s negligence, visit our personal injury practice page or contact us today for a confidential consultation. 

As a result of Silverman Thompson’s motions practice, the court found that the at-issue arbitration provision “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration for these claims. Ultimately, the court granted the motion, enforced the arbitration provision, and dismissed the case, securing a significant victory for our client.

Silverman Thompson Compels Arbitration of Putative Class Action Filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

In Wood v. NFM, Inc., Civil No. GJR-24-02207, Chief Judge Russell of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently granted Silverman Thompson’s client NFM, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration.  A copy of the opinion can be found here.

Plaintiff William Wood sought to bring a collective action, or in the alternative, a class action, suit against NFM under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming that he and other non-exempt, hourly employees who had worked for NFM as loan originators, loan officers, or loan officer assistances, had not properly been paid overtime, amongst other purported federal wage and hour violations. The action revolved around employment agreements that contained a binding arbitration provision that required disputes between the parties to be brought in arbitration.

At the outset of the case, Silverman Thompson moved to compel arbitration and dismiss for improper venue arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were subject to the agreement’s binding arbitration provision, including its fee shifting provision that would allow NFM to recover its fees for having to compel arbitration, should it prove successful on its motion. Plaintiff amended his complaint in the hope of being able to avoid arbitration, limiting his claims to those arising out of an earlier agreement he executed with NFM that purportedly contained a one-sided arbitration provision that would have allowed NFM to litigate any dispute with him in federal or state court but would have required him to proceed through arbitration only.    

Silverman Thompson again filed a motion to compel, arguing that a later-signed employment agreement controlled.  That motion was briefed in full (as is custom, the Court did not hold a hearing on the motion).  After carefully considering the briefing, the Court sided with NFM, finding that the later-signed agreement did control and that the binding arbitration provision at issue “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration for the plaintiff’s claims.

Ultimately, the court granted the motion, enforced the binding arbitration provision, dismissed the case, and gave NFM an opportunity to seek its fees and costs for having to file the motion in the first place, securing a significant victory for Silverman Thompson’s client.

The Importance of Arbitration in Resolving Business Disputes

Binding arbitration provisions serve as a crucial tool for businesses and individuals to efficiently resolve disputes while avoiding the costs and uncertainties of prolonged litigation and, oftentimes, a jury being the ultimate decision-maker rather than a judge or lawyer, trained in the law. Courts consistently recognize and enforce arbitration agreements when properly drafted, reinforcing the principle that parties must honor their contractual commitments.

By securing a dismissal in this case, Silverman Thompson reaffirmed the strength of arbitration clauses and the protection they offer against forum shopping and unnecessary litigation. This outcome underscores the importance of well-structured employment agreements and demonstrates Silverman Thompson’s commitment to and experience with drafting sound employment agreement and defending businesses and individuals against unwarranted legal claims.

Contact Silverman Thompson’s Business Counseling, Litigation & Transactions Team

The business and civil lawyers at Silverman Thompson are well versed in defending putative wage and hour class actions in both federal and state court, here in Maryland and elsewhere. 

Please contact Bill Sinclair, department head, at bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com or at (410) 385-2225 to discuss this case or how Silverman Thompson may be able to help you.

Read the Baltimore Banner’s reporting here

Jenkins’ nightmare started in May 2022, when three ATF agents dropped in to interview him – unexpectedly and while surreptitiously recording the hour-long conversation with the Sheriff. The agents demanded to see the Sheriff who was out of the office at the time. They were rude and unprofessional towards the staff of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff returned to the office, and while under no obligation to speak with the agents, answered all their questions. He had nothing to hide and had no idea why the agents were there. 

The agents explained that the ATF was investigating smalltown police chiefs and sheriffs across the country who were taking kick-backs from gun dealers in return for letters on law enforcement letterhead requesting demonstrations of highly restricted machine guns, permitting the gun dealers to be able to obtain the guns and earn income by renting them to members of the public to be used on the dealer’s gun range. The crime was that the law enforcement agencies never had any real interest in purchasing machine guns but wrote the letters in return for cash ($1,000 -2,000 per letter), and for a percentage of the rental income of each machine gun. To convict a Sheriff or police chief of this crime, the government had to prove that the chief knew writing the letters was a crime. In those cases across the country, when kickbacks and percentages are being paid, the required proof of criminal intent is satisfied. 

In the year following the interview prior to the return of the indictment in April 2023, ATF subpoenaed the sheriff’s emails, his campaign records, and records from the Frederick County government. There was no evidence of any quid pro quo flowing to Sheriff Jenkins and no evidence that the Sheriff had any inkling that providing such a letter to a local business was running afoul of the law.  In fact, over the years, Jenkins had provided similar letters to other gun dealers in addition to Robert Krop, as early as 2013.  In each instance, the ATF approved the letters.  The ATF also issued written guidance to gun dealers across the United States advising them what the requirements were for these letters from law enforcement. ATF issued this guidance in 1999, 2002, 2006, and in 2023.  None of this information was ever disseminated by the ATF to law enforcement agencies. Between no guidance from the ATF, and ATFs repeated approval of the letters that Jenkins did write, there was no reason for him to know that there was anything wrong, improper or illegal in doing so.  There was never any evidence that Sheriff Jenkins acted with the intent to violate the law, nor that he and Robert Krop were in a criminal conspiracy together.

After the May 2022 interview by the three ATF agents by Jenkins, his counsel, Silverman Thompson attorney Andrea Smith, offered to bring him in to speak with the prosecutors. They declined to speak with Jenkins. 

Smith, formerly a prosecutor for 36 years (26 of those years in the very same U.S. Attorney’s Office investigating Sheriff Jenkins), knew at that moment, that the prosecutors and agents had already made up their minds that the Sheriff was guilty. They could not have been more wrong. The emotional and financial burden on the Sheriff has been overwhelming. Sheriff Jenkins maintained his innocence from the moment he was made aware of this investigation. Two and a half years later, he was finally vindicated. 

At a press conference at the Federick Law Enforcement Center at 3 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, Ms. Smith said,

Sheriff Jenkins offered to come speak with the prosecutors. They were not interested. I have never heard of a prosecutor that did not jump at the chance to speak to someone they were investigating.  It told me they had already made up their minds. As a prosecutor, it’s not about winning. It’s about getting to the truth. You don’t decide the outcome, and then go looking for the evidence to support it. You follow the evidence wherever it takes you. That is what justice looks like.

Contact Andrea Smith and the Silverman Thompson Criminal Defense Team

Baltimore criminal defense attorney Andrea Smith served as a Baltimore City Prosecutor from 1981 to 1990, and at the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland from 1990 to 2016, when she retired.  Most of her career involved investigating and prosecuting violent drug gangs. A detailed description can be found here.  She joined Silverman Thompson in January 2017 and has spent the last eight years defending criminal matters.

To learn more about the criminal defense team at Silverman Thompson, call us toll-free at 800-385-2243 for a free consultation, or contact Andrea Smith at asmith@silvermanthompson.com or Andrew C. White at awhite@silvermanthompson.com.

The subject had a lengthy criminal history involving serious, violent offenses, including past convictions for armed robbery and armed carjacking. When arrested, the subject advised the arresting officer that he had been shot in the hand and arm a few weeks prior and was scheduled to have surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day. The police agreed to transport him to the hospital and, once at Hopkins, the subject managed to distract the officer who was guarding him, break the steel chain on his leg shackles, and escape from custody.

Read the Baltimore Banner’s reporting here

Read the Baltimore Sun’s reporting here

Following a multi-jurisdictional manhunt, the subject was apprehended a short time later by the Baltimore City Police. Our client was one of the first officers to arrive on the scene and took custody of the subject. Soon, several other County Officers arrived and joined the multiple City Officers who remained on the scene. Our client remained the ranking County Officer, but there was a City Sergeant on the scene making him the ranking officer overall. The subject was at first cooperative but as our client attempted to place him into the back of a county police cruiser, that was running with the air conditioning on, the subject blocked the door from being shut with his knee. Our client repeatedly warned the subject not to resist and physically pushed his knee out of the path of the door.

Within 45 seconds of being in the back of the car, the subject began screaming that he couldn’t breathe and banging on the window. As indicated, the car was running and the temperature that day was 68 degrees Fahrenheit, so every officer on the scene knew that the subject was lying about not being able to breathe. 

At this point, our client opened the door and, using very stern language and tone, warned the subject again, that if he continued to kick the window and door, he was going to spray him with OC spray, commonly referred to as “pepper spray.” Our client then attempted to close the door three separate times and each time the subject blocked the door with his elbow, preventing it from closing. At this point, our client announced that he was going to spray the subject to warn the other officers and deployed the spray into the subject’s face in a manner consistent with his training. This action allowed officers to secure the subject in the vehicle for transport. However, a short time later, the subject reacted by kicking the door and window even harder. It would obviously not be safe to transport the subject while he was engaging in this behavior, so they removed him from the vehicle to place him in the “recovery position”—which consists of lying the subject on the ground on his side. Officers are trained to place subjects who have been sprayed in this position to help them recover from the effects of the spray.

The subject again refused to cooperate, first dropping limply to his knees and then resisting attempts to be placed in the recovery position. Our client, acting in real time, grabbed him by his hair to control him and force his compliance. He held his hair for exactly 28 seconds and released it immediately upon the subject relaxing his body and submitting to his control. The subject was not injured in any way—a fact that he confirmed on video once he was interviewed back at the station. 

Despite the lack of injury, our client was indicted by the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office of violating the newly enacted Use of Force Statute, as well as Second Degree Assault, Reckless Endangerment, and Misconduct in Office. Three other Baltimore County Officers were also indicted for failing to intervene, which is a requirement under the new statute if the officer perceives that excessive force is being utilized by another officer. Interestingly, no Baltimore City Officers were charged, even though many remained on the scene throughout our client’s interaction with the subject. 

The trial lasted seven days, after which the Court acquitted our client of all charges, concluding correctly that the officer had not used excessive force in dealing with a violent criminal who had already escaped custody once. 

In Mr. Thompson’s closing argument, he argued that not only had the Corporal not violated the law, but that this was a “textbook application of force” because he managed to subdue a violently resisting subject and get him into custody without injuring him in any way.

For more information or a free consultation, call Brian Thompson at 410-659-9930.

Jurisdictions across the country have brought suit against dozens of energy companies for allegedly causing or exacerbating problems related to climate change. While plaintiffs’ theories have evolved since these suits were first filed almost a decade ago, in their current iteration, plaintiffs like the City of Baltimore claim that the energy companies have known for half a century that use of their fossil fuel products have created greenhouse gas pollution that has, inter alia, contributed to global warming but, rather than share their knowledge, have engaged in a campaign of deception to misrepresent and conceal their products’ risks.

The City of Baltimore in particular claims that as a result of this misrepresentation and concealment, it and the public at large have relied to their detriment on the energy companies’ false statements, causing climate change-related injuries such as sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of extreme precipitation events, increased frequency and severity of drought, increased frequency and severity of heat wave and extreme temperatures, and consequently social and economic damages associated with those physical and environmental changes.

Baltimore first brought suit in state court in July 2018. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which remanded the matter in June 2019. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision in March 2020, but the matter was stayed that summer pending a decision on a writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately vacated and remanded the case for consideration of defendants’ theories of removal. The Fourth Circuit nonetheless affirmed remand in 2022, and the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lifted the stay in May 2023.  The parties thereafter briefed motions to dismiss, and the court held oral argument in March 2024.

Generally, defendants’ motions advanced four arguments: the City’s claims are preempted by federal common law; the City’s state law claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act; the City’s claims raise nonjusticiable political questions, and the City failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The Court granted the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that the City’s claims were preempted by both federal common law and the Clean Air Act and that, even were that not the case, the City has failed to adequately plead its state law claims. 

Silverman Thompson has served as local counsel to Shell plc and Shell USA, Inc. (collectively “Shell”) in this matter since the outset (we also represent Shell as local counsel in similar litigation pending in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County).

Silverman Thompson lawyers have both prosecuted and defended complex environmental and tort matters in Maryland’s state and federal courts as well as across the country.  To learn more about Silverman Thompson generally, or its sophisticated business litigation practice, please contact Bill Sinclair, who served as the primary Silverman Thompson lawyer handling this matter. He can be reached directly at 410.385.9116.

July 1, 2024 – On Friday, June 21, 2024, Under Armour announced that, subject to court approval, it had settled a pending securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The settlement closes a case originally filed in February 2017, which had twice been dismissed with prejudice before finding new life after it was reported in the fall of 2019 that the Securities & Exchange Commission and United States Department of Justice had fined Under Armour for the conduct alleged here. That announcement proved the tipping point in the case, as thereafter, Judge Richard Bennett allowed the case to return from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (where the dismissal had been on appeal), reversed himself on the dismissal, and ultimately certified a class and denied summary judgment and Under Armour’s motions in limine. The case was scheduled to begin a two-plus-week jury trial on July 15, 2024.  

Read the Baltimore Banner’s reporting on the matter here. 

            At its heart, this case was about the defendants’ actions in 2015 and 2016.  Through the third quarter of 2016, Under Armour had experienced 26 consecutive quarters of growth, a point that Under Armour founder, Kevin Plank, proudly reiterated as often as he could to investors. Indeed, according to Plank, that feat was shared by only one other company in the S&P 500 and he touted it to instill confidence that, notwithstanding the critical pressure that Under Armour faced from competitors like Nike and Adidas, it was all but assured of continued growth. 

            In reality, Under Armour began to experience a severe decline in its apparel business in or around 2015, as customer demand for the company’s core products began to wane and Under Armour failed to keep up with then-current “athleisure” trends. Faced with these and other issues, the Company abandoned its fundamental sales philosophy of competing on brand strength over price and resorted to lowering sales prices, offering promotions, and liquidating excess inventory at steep discounts.  All of this occurred at a time when its chief rival, Nike, was steadily increasing average sales prices. 

            To preserve Under Armour’s carefully cultivated image of a fast-growing, cutting-edge sports brand on par with the Nikes of the world, it is alleged that Under Armour made false representations to the market about the strength of its growth and customer demand while downplaying or concealing the company’s ballooning inventory, liquidations, and gross margin compression. Coupled with suspicious stock sales by Plank himself and the resignation of its chief financial officer only 13 months after he took the job, the market finally began to take notice in 2017 of what had been occurring, at which time, Robbins Geller and Silverman Thompson filed their initial complaint in this matter.     

            A hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement will occur on July 22, 2024.  If the court grants preliminary approval, it is expected that a 120 day period will follow during which objections, if any, could be lodged to the settlement.  It is further expected that Judge Bennett will hold a final conference in November regarding settlement approval.  If approved, this may be the first case in American history to have been dismissed twice with prejudice only to later settle for close to half a billion dollars. 

            Silverman Thompson was engaged by Robbins Geller to serve as local counsel in this matter. Silverman Thompson lawyers have prosecuted and defended class actions in Maryland’s state and federal courts and across the country.  To learn more about Silverman Thompson generally, or its class action practice specifically, please contact Bill Sinclair, who served as the primary Silverman Thompson lawyer handling this matter. He can be reached directly at 410.385.9116.

The plaintiff argued that contract provision should be voided because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, but the Court agreed with NFM that it was a “run of the mill” arbitration provision and that, to the extent it had a few potentially offending provisions, they could be blue penciled out. In addition to compelling arbitration, the Court stayed plaintiff’s PAGA claim pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Silverman Thompson’s lawyers routinely handle labor and employment matters in federal and state courts in the Mid-Atlantic and beyond. For more information about this case or how Silverman Thompson may be able to assist you, please contact Bill Sinclair or Todd Hesel who handled the case for NFM.

The case involved a complicated land dispute related to a barn built by plaintiffs that significantly encroached on property purchased by Firm client. In their lawsuit filed in 2022, plaintiffs alleged over $100,000 in alleged damages, dated back to 2016, and requested that the Court declare plaintiffs the legal owners of the barn.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the Firm’s client under seven counts, specifically: (1) temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, (2) declaratory judgment, (3) trespass to possessory interest, (4) trespass to chattels, (5) quiet title, (6) possession of property, and (7) conversion. Bill Sinclair, Avery Strachan, Kerri Smith, and Erin Brooks handled the case for the Firm, filing a Motion to Dismiss all claims alleged by plaintiffs.

On November 2, 2023, Kerri Smith argued the Firm’s Motion to Dismiss in front of the Honorable Judge Mary Kramer in the Circuit Court for Howard County. After the matter was held sub curia, Judge Kramer ruled in favor of the Firm’s argument that the three-year statute of limitations articulated in Section 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article barred all seven of plaintiffs’ claims, and dismissed plaintiffs’ entire First Amended Verified Complaint with prejudice. A copy of the opinion is here.

The Silverman Thompson real estate litigation department is well-versed in land disputes and defending claims for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief. To find out more about how we might be able to help you, please click on the hyperlinks above to see the attorneys who handled this matter.

Michael Levin handled the case for the firm and filed a concise 5 page brief arguing that the Complaint should be dismissed because: (1) It was untimely under Maryland’s 3-year statute of limitations; and (2) The plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts that, even if true, stated a legal claim for negligent hiring under controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Maryland. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice, which means that the plaintiff cannot amend or refile the case.

The firm’s business litigation department is experienced in defending all variety of civil lawsuits. To find out more about how we might be able to help you, please contact Michael Levin directly or call Silverman Thompson toll-free at 800.385.2243.

The case involved race and religious discrimination claims brought under federal law by a group of plaintiffs against a dining establishment in Anne Arundel County. Bill Sinclair, Kate Sinclair, and Emma Mulford handled the case for the firm, and they successfully saw many of the claims dismissed on a motion to dismiss. After dozens of depositions during discovery, the firm filed summary judgment on the remaining claims. Chief Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner (the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate) adopted the arguments the Firm presented – namely, that the plaintiffs had lodged most of their claims against the wrong corporate defendant, and that any remaining claims failed to present sufficient factual evidence of race or religious discrimination to withstand summary judgment. A copy of the opinion is here.

The Firm’s business litigation department is well-versed in defending claims of race and religious discrimination. To find out more about how we might be able to help you, please click on any of the hyperlinks above to the attorneys who handled this matter.