In recent years, the federal government has taken on cases where defendants faced felony charges or had their lives turned upside down by a legal strategy known as the “work injury” defense.
The defense is designed to allow people injured in work to collect on the damages caused by their wrongful dismissal.
The problem is, it’s not always that simple.
In fact, it may not even be that simple at all.
A recent case brought by a former federal drug defense attorney, who worked on an important drug case, shows how it can be, and is, difficult to win.
Federal prosecutors in New York allege that the defendant was fired because he “liked” his boss.
The government’s case in this case involves a defendant named Michael E. Dukes, who was fired by his former drug defense firm in 2010 after his defense team had secured a $30 million settlement.
He filed a federal lawsuit against the company, claiming he had been unfairly fired.
The case was dismissed after Dukes’ lawyers, who had already won a $9 million jury verdict, won the case on a technicality.
Dukes is now appealing that ruling.
Duke was fired from his former law firm after he was accused of stealing $1.4 million from the firm, which he owned, and lying about it in his defense.
Daughters attorneys say he was fired after he lied to the firm about his relationship with Dukes and his inability to pay him back.
“In our case, Mr. D. was not fired from the law firm for having an interest in his work,” Dukes said in a statement to Politico.
“Instead, he was terminated because he liked a friend of his.
I was fired for having no such interest in working for him.”
According to the statement, the “liking” clause is meant to protect an employee from being fired because of a personal relationship.
It is also meant to shield the client from having their personal information exposed in a court of law, which would be the case in Dukes case.
But in this particular case, the defense team was able to use the “likeness” clause to win a jury verdict.
According to the Times Union, the jury awarded Dukes $31 million in damages for his wrongful termination.
The jury awarded him $4 million in attorney’s fees.
In addition to that, the judge ruled that Dukes was not entitled to any of the other benefits Dukes would have received under a jury trial.
In a separate case, a federal appeals court ruled last month that the “liability defense” is illegal and that it’s unconstitutional to rely on “likability” clauses.
“There is no basis for the claim that an individual is entitled to have a lawyer represent him if he is a ‘liking’ defendant who has violated the law, and has committed a criminal offense, or even if he does not know about the criminal offense,” the ruling said.
“The federal criminal law does not protect a lawyer’s ‘likability’ from the criminal liability of an employee.”
In a statement, Dukes attorney, James E. Smith, said, “In this case, it appears that D. is trying to make a quick buck.
That is not fair to the employee who worked for him, the defendant, or the taxpayers who pay for his defense.”
Dukes was one of several former defense lawyers who received settlements for their work after their employers were sued by drug companies.
Duke’s case is not the only recent example of a federal case being tossed because of an argument over a “likable” clause.
In June, a jury in Georgia awarded a former drug manufacturer $9.2 million after a jury found him liable for the wrongful termination of a former employee.
More than 50 former drug executives and their families sued their former employer for $40 million after they were fired for “likes” on social media.
The former employee had been fired in 2012 for posting “loud and proud” support for a friend who had died.
The jurors were told the company knew of the “Likes” but failed to take action.
The company’s appeal was denied.
As for the “favors” clause, it is a legal principle that can make it difficult for individuals to win against their employers in court.
According the United States Supreme Court, a defendant can be liable if they are aware that a person has a personal or familial interest in a case and knowingly withholds or misrepresents information that could potentially cause harm to the defendant’s business.
In the case of a dismissal, this is often done in a “disparate impact” defense, where an employer knows about an employee’s actions, but chooses not to take legal action because it is not “necessary or proper.”