Gross & Gross, L.L.C. is engaged in the practice and counseling of law in the State of Ohio, as well as throughout the United States, in various administrative agencies and courts (through pro hac vice admission).
The goal of the firm is recognized among its peers by its ranking of “AV” for its “Very High” legal and ethical standards by the national publication Martindale-Hubbell.
The members of the firm pride themselves on providing the highest standard of legal service in a thorough, efficient and timely manner, and at a cost that compares favorably with other firms practicing in similar areas of the law. We also serve as an alternative to “in-house counsel” for clients who do not need a full time in-house legal expert or do not desire the expense and potential loss of attorney-client privilege. This kind of working relationship allows us to understand clients’ day-to-day business so that we can effectively represent them when issues do arise.
Our smaller, “boutique” size, also allows each of us to provide detailed and individualized attention to each matter that comes through our doors. As always, due consideration is given and to the issues presented by clients, along with their business, financial practical concerns, so that honest opinions may be promptly offered on the merits of each matter.
This impartial attention to the legal merit of claims and/or defenses has garnered the firm respect among colleagues and opposition. Where repeated contact with opposing parties is necessary, these parties know only too well that any claim or defense pursued by the firm will be pursued aggressively and effectively. This has had the positive side effect of deterring baseless litigation.
Likewise, the firm’s reputation for honesty and fair-dealing stands it in good stead at the negotiating table, enhancing a proper atmosphere in which parties can come to agreement, as well as the firm’s effectiveness as an advocate.
Representative Cases:
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1993), 312 NLRB 674; 1993 NLRB LEXIS 1031; 146 LRRM 1055; 1993-94 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P15,096; 312 NLRB116 (Sept. 30 1993). Lead counsel in obtaining summary judgment for employers in Board action alleging joint-employer relationship among Ryder Systems, Goodyear and Transportation Unlimited, Inc. and related unfair labor practices. Remains a lead case, cited by the Board and the courts, on joint employer status.
- State ex rel. Minutemen, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 62 Ohio St. 3d 158 (1991). Per curiam decision granting mandamus action seeking reclassification of basic rate manual numbers and reimbursement of premium overpayments made by employer.
- Mowat v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., 984 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1992); 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 31857; 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41,986; 2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA). Summary judgment for employer in handicap discrimination affirmed. Terminated employee did not prove on-the-job injury was generally debilitating or prevented his employment as a truck driver for another employer and, therefore, was not disabled within the meaning of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
- Johnson v. Minutemen, Inc., Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Case No. A9005534 (1986). Summary judgment for employer granted in intentional tort litigation.
- Brockett v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 831 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir. 1987) Per curiam. ERISA defense case, in which appeals court affirmed finding by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits in excess of allowed Plan amount without requirement of entire Plan Amendment.
- Spain v. Luxaire, Inc., 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 8912 (9th Dist. Lorain County Jan. 24, 1979). Affirmed directed l verdict for employer that 30-year employee had failed to prove existence of oral or written employment contract and, therefore, his employment was terminable at will by either party.
- Blanchard v. Johnson, 532 F.2d 1074 (6th Cir. 1976); 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12016; 91 LRRM 3070; 78 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11,350. Reversed order by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, requiring competing affiliation proposal to appear on a referendum ballot. District court’s order unnecessarily intruded into the internal operations of the union.