Golomb & Honik lawyers are unique in our ability to apply considerable civil litigation experience across a broad range of commercial and business disputes. The firm’s commercial litigation practice encompasses virtually all aspects of commercial relationships, including contract disputes, unfair competition and other trade infringement, consumer protection and price discrimination, insurance and insurance-related litigation, civil RICO, and First Amendment and defamation law. Some of our commercial litigation experience, particularly in the consumer protection area, has spawned significant results in related class action suits. With a strong reputation in the area of personal injury and an entrepreneurial approach, Golomb & Honik undertakes select commercial and business litigation on a contingent basis.

• $7.3 Million Settlement for Misled Students Golomb & Honik represented current and former students who sued a national vocational school, alleging that they had been fraudulently misled as to the education they would receive. Golomb & Honik served as co-lead counsel in this groundbreaking consumer class action, in which plaintiffs and absent national class members sought education from a publicly traded corporation in the field of diagnostic medical sonography. Golomb & Honik succeeded in demonstrating the chain of schools fraudulently misrepresented the nature of the ultrasound program and otherwise failed to provide the education represented. Students received federally guaranteed student loans but were largely unable to obtain promised jobs in their area of study. The school had no meaningful admissions criteria and often hired unqualified administrative and educational personnel. Field placements did not materialize, and students were unprepared to take qualifying exams. Students were stuck with loan repayments for which they received little or nothing in return. In approving certification of the class, and later the class settlement, the United States District Court said about counsel representing plaintiffs that "[t]he skill of each of these attorneys is reflected both in settlement and in the aggressive manner in which they pursued this litigation from start to finish." 197 F.R.D. at 149. The Court noted in conclusion, "the highly skilled class counsel provided excellent representation both for named plaintiffs and absent class members." Id. The class settlement of $7.3 million was the largest common fund of its kind.

• Confidential Settlement for Race Discrimination Against Wells Fargo  G&H Attorneys represented nineteen (19) African Americans who were terminated by Wells Fargo in 2006 for allegedly abusing the Wells Fargo email system and information security policy.  After more than thirty (30) depositions, multiple settlement conferences and two (2) days of mediation, all of the remaining individual cases settled.

   

  In 2006, based on the investigation into the email use of a single employee, Wells Fargo decided to investigate seventy-two (72) of their employees into their individual email use – sixty-eight (68), or 94%, of those investigated were African American.  The office in which this investigation took place was 45% African American.  The investigation was conducted from home office in Des Moines, Iowa.

   

  As a result of this investigation, thirty-two (32) Wells Fargo employees were terminated and thirty-one (31), or 97%, of them were African American.

   

  Litigation ensued claiming racial discrimination and disparate treatment and through written discovery and many depositions critical facts were learned including that the terminated employees named at least twenty (20) caucasian employees engaging in the same or similar conduct.  Not only were these individuals not investigated, but Wells Fargo deleted the emails in question from the system.  Additionally, several of the supervisors involved in the investigation and firings were concerned that over 97% of the fired employees were African American.  As a result, they suggested “random sampling” within this particular office.  This suggestion was summarily dismissed and the firings went forward as recommended by home office.

   

  Individual Motions for Summary Judgment were dismissed as to all Plaintiffs, and after multiple efforts to settle, they were resolved several weeks before the first scheduled trial.