Brunini Law

Brunini Law

DEI Update: U.S. Supreme Court says “reverse” discrimination claims do not require more of majority plaintiffs

by

By Hunter Ransom

Recent industry studies show U.S. employers increasingly worried about litigation over their diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) policies. Some of those concerns include suits from employees alleging “reverse” discrimination (i.e., claims of employment discrimination by Caucasians, males, heterosexuals, non-disabled individuals, etc. in favor of minorities), likely based in part on the federal government’s shift in focus to “discrimination related to DEI.” The Supreme Court may have validated that concern last week in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025).

Ames involves a claim against a state agency by a straight woman who was (1) passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman, and (2) demoted from her role as a program administrator in favor of a gay man. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the agency, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held Ames failed to show a requisite prima facie case because she failed to also show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Ordinarily, a so-called “prima facie case” of employment discrimination requires “enough evidence to support an inference of discrimination.” In other words, the Sixth Circuit’s opinion seemingly required non-minorities (such as Caucasians, heterosexuals, etc.) to show such background circumstances “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.”

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, holding Title VII does not support the additional “background circumstances” requirement on majority plaintiffs or the “heightened evidentiary standard” that requirement imposes. Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, writing for the Court, specifically noted that Title VII “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” Ames’s discrimination lawsuit will go back to the lower courts “for application of the proper prima facie standard.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, met with mixed reactions, split across political and industrial lines. On one hand, the Court’s decision seemingly offered further support to the recent wave of anti-DEI policies. On the other hand, the Court’s decision could pave the way for an increase in employment discrimination litigation.

Based on the Supreme Court’s clarified standard, employers should be mindful of federal, state, and local standards for employment discrimination and evaluate their DEI policies. In the meantime, Brunini’s employment practice group will monitor Ames’s impact on new employment-discrimination cases.

 

 

Related Attorneys

Biden’s unnecessary regulations on offshore oil rigs threaten jobs in Gulf States

by

By CURT L. HEBERT JR. AND CURTIS SCHUBE

The Biden administration, in line with its goal of significantly reducing oil production, has quietly implemented regulations that are likely to result in a significant loss of jobs in the oil industry across the Gulf Coast states, including Mississippi and Louisiana.

For any offshore producer of energy, part of the company’s financial calculus has to be the ability to comply with all imposed industry regulations that require companies to be able to disassemble the facility and restore the site after the end of production (“decommissioning”).

This can be expensive, so often, this process requires companies to demonstrate their capacity to pay for the decommissioning. This can be done by demonstrating financial strength and reliability or by purchasing surety bonds if that financial strength and reliability is not demonstrated.

The offshore oil industry has operated under a financial assurance model that has worked extraordinarily well for years and the oil industry has thrived under a successful financial assurance model. The typical journey of an offshore oil rig involves a major oil company erecting the oil rig and using it during its most productive phase. Eventually, the major companies may sell off the leasing rights to smaller, independent, oil companies who continue to extract oil until the oil rig reaches the end of its productive life.

Major oil companies have no trouble with financial assurance. They have a deep reserve of assets to draw upon, which usually prevents them from having to purchase surety bonds. However, the assets are not always sufficient for smaller companies.

This reality has historically not been a problem. The system has included joint and several liability between the oil producers, and it has relied on the market to act as a safety net. When the existing owner cannot pay for all of the decommissioning, predecessor owners have stepped up. This risk has usually been built into the transactions between the two companies, with the major oil companies doing their due diligence before assuming the risk. Importantly, with this system in place, as long as any company that has ever controlled the lease has the necessary financial strength, no surety bonds must be purchased.

The end result of this joint and several liability system is that the taxpayer almost never has to pay for decommissioning. Historically, only $58 million has been paid for by the taxpayer. This is a tiny amount considering the size of the industry. All of that amount came from sole liability leaseholders, where there was no predecessor owner to assume the gap in liability. Bottom line: The existing system has worked, and the taxpayer has been protected for decades.

Recently, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management passed regulations that try to fix what wasn’t broken. They noticeably fail to affirm that this joint and several liability framework will remain moving forward — so much so that the Surety and Fidelity Association of America noted that “BOEM is silent as to how and when the required financial assurance will be called upon.”

As a result, small and independent oil companies are likely to be required to purchase surety bonds to meet their financial assurance requirements. However, the surety market has stated that it may not even be able to underwrite the amount of necessary surety bonds. Even if it could, this would add $6 billion in new costs for these small oil companies over the next 20 years.

Small oil companies make up over 75% of the oil companies currently operating in the outer continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. The average cost increase for those companies to purchase the newly required surety bonds is projected to be $379 million per year at best, but likely closer to $800 million per year. Assuming these small oil companies can even get the necessary surety bonds, the costs of the surety bonds are likely to damage them severely.

The new regulations are likely to put many small oil companies out of business, and the people who work for them are also likely to find themselves without jobs. Opportune LLP wrote that the new regulations will eliminate 36,000 jobs. Additionally, Opportune projects the regulations will shrink the nation’s gross domestic product by $9.9 billion and will cost the federal government $573 million in oil royalties.

The new regulations frivolously act as the tip of the spear for the environmental activists who seem to hold tremendous sway over key leadership in the Biden administration. The significant impact on Gulf States’ workers is unnecessary. The damage to the economy is unnecessary. It is time that our federal government stops appeasing the few at the cost of so many.

Hebert is the former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a former chairman of the Mississippi Public Service Commission and a former chairman of the Oil and Gas Committee in the Mississippi House of Representatives. He is currently a partner with the Brunini Law Firm and is an expert on the complex power and energy industry as well as the regulation of the industry by government at all levels.

Schube is the executive director for the Council to Modernize Governance, a think tank committed to making the administration of government more efficient, representative and restrained. He is formerly a constitutional and administrative law attorney.

Related Attorneys

UPDATE: U.S. Department of Labor Finalizes “Proposed Rule” Increasing White-Collar Overtime Exemption Threshold

by

By: Hunter C. Ransom

Summary: Minimum salary threshold for overtime exemption to rise to $43,888 on July 1, 2024; then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025; then automatically every three years.

Last year, the United States Department of Labor released a Proposed Rule titled Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees. That’s a long-winded way of saying the DOL is substantially increasing the number of employees eligible for overtime.

Starting from the Bottom

The Fair Labor Standards Act generally requires employers to pay an overtime premium of 1.5 times an employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 in work week unless the employee falls under an exemption. See 29 U.S.C. § 207. One exemption is the so-called “White-Collar Exemption” for Executive, Administrative, and Professional employees.

To fall under the white-collar exemption, an employee must satisfy three requirements:

  • Salary Basis Test: The employee must receive a salary (i.e., the same amount each week regardless of quantity or quality of work performed);
  • Salary Level Test: The salary must meet the minimum threshold; and
  • Duties Test: The employee must meet a duties test for the applicable exemption (executive, administrative, or professional).

The DOL’s Final Rule affects the minimum threshold for the Salary Level Test. Until 2016, the minimum salary threshold for that exemption stayed at $455 per week ($23,660 annually). After a failed update by the Obama-era DOL in 2016, the Trump-era DOL raised the threshold to $679 per week ($35,308 annually), where it currently sits until July 1.

Proposed Rule becomes Final 

In September of last year, the DOL proposed a rule that would both significantly raise the threshold to $1,059 per week and automatically update the salary threshold every three years based on the latest earnings data. On April 23, 2024, the DOL released the final rule.

The DOL received over 30,000 comments since proposing its new rule, leading to small changes: it raises the final threshold (effective in 2025) higher than the proposed rule, and it drops a proposal to apply the new threshold to U.S. territories. To summarize, here’s what to expect:

  • Effective July 1, 2024, the overtime salary exemption threshold for white-collar employees will rise to $43,888;
  • Effective January 1, 2025, the threshold will rise to $58,656;
  • The threshold will rise every three years automatically based on latest earnings data.

How to prepare

The new rule will likely face legal challenges, but employers should prepare for higher operating costs. Specifically, employers should contact their legal counsel, audit their current practices, and project the increased costs resulting from the Final Rule. A specific action item may include, among other things, (a) re-classify employees as non-exempt or (b) adjust salaries to meet or exceed the new thresholds.

Feel free to contact any attorney in Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group with any questions or concerns.

Related Attorneys

PATRICK MCDOWELL FEATURED BY THE APPELLATE LAWYERS AS A TOP APPELLATE ATTORNEY FOR MISSISSIPPI

by

Patrick McDowell is featured by The Appellate Lawyers as a top appellate attorney for Mississippi. Patrick is licensed to practice in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. His practice focuses on complex litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts, including antitrust, contract, business tort, unfair competition, RICO, trademark, securities, product liability, drug and medical device, toxic exposure, and environmental litigation. He has successfully prosecuted and defended commercial disputes on behalf of entertainment, environmental, financial, food, insurance, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications, and television services providers. He has also successfully defended manufacturers, producers, and licensors against product liability, negligence, and toxic tort claims.

Patrick concentrates much of his practice on the defense of multi-state and federal multidistrict litigation, class actions, mass torts, and attorney general civil litigation. He has represented healthcare insurers and food producers in multidistrict antitrust class actions; telecommunications and technology services providers in multidistrict securities and ERISA class actions; employers, insurers, banks, and television service providers in federal class actions; drug, device, and other product manufacturers in multidistrict and multi-state mass tort actions; and drug and device manufacturers, healthcare insurers, and financial service providers in attorney general civil litigation.

The Appellate Lawyers is the premier guide to recommend appeals attorneys, practice area news and legal insights. TAL provides a concise and up-to-date guide to leading appellate attorneys across the country. TAL’s research covers all 50 states and a wide selection of specialist practice areas, with featured attorneys being selected based on the results of peer nominations, in-depth research, awards and client feedback.

Superlative research, analysis, and writing skills are vital when representing clients on appeal, as the strength of the case rests on the brief. Top appellate attorneys must also be skilled oral advocates. TAL’s recommended lawyers have vast experience reviewing the entire record, including trial transcripts, evidentiary materials, and motions to determine which grounds, if any, exist as a basis for your appeal. Each year, only one attorney per state is selected and recommended in our guide. The selection process is independent and it is not possible to request entry. Inclusion is by invitation only.

Related Attorneys

Stephen J. Carmody Named Senior Fellow of Litigation Counsel of America

by

SENIOR FELLOW PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

STEPHEN J. CARMODY NAMED SENIOR FELLOW OF LITIGATION COUNSEL OF AMERICA

Jackson attorney Stephen J. Carmody, of the law firm Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLCC, has been named a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA). Carmody is a litigator in the firm’s Labor & Employment practice group. Steve’s practice emphasizes labor, employment, employee benefits, intellectual property, and construction litigation. He has handled a number of collective action lawsuits alleging wage and hour violations. He has taught food products litigation, seminars for the National Business Institute and the University of Mississippi Continuing Legal Education Department. He has served as a guest lecturer at Mississippi College School of Law.

The Litigation Counsel of America is a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. Fellowship in the LCA is highly selective and by invitation only. Fellows are selected based upon excellence and accomplishment in litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels, and superior ethical reputation. Senior Fellow status in the society is reserved for advanced commitment to and support of the LCA, the Diversity Law Institute and the Trial Law Institute. The LCA is aggressively diverse in its composition. Established as a trial and appellate lawyer honorary society reflecting the American bar in the twenty-first century, the LCA represents the best in law among its membership. The number of Fellowships has been kept at an exclusive limit by design, allowing qualifications, diversity and inclusion to align effectively, with recognition of excellence in litigation across all segments of the bar. Fellows are generally at the partner or shareholder level, or are independent practitioners with recognized experience and accomplishment. In addition, the LCA is dedicated to promoting superior advocacy, professionalism and ethical standards among its Fellows.

Carmody is a member of the Catholic Foundation and Director of its Bishop’s Cup Charity Golf Tournament. He also serves as a Board Member, Legal Counsel, Vice President and Treasurer of the Board of Governors of the Country Club of Jackson.

Related Attorneys

NLRB Issues (New) Final Rule Expanding the Definition of a “Joint Employer”

by

By: Hunter C. Ransom

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) released its new/final “joint employer” rule potentially allowing workers to constitute employees of more than one entity for labor relations purposes—a move that will result in increased union organizing and collective bargaining efforts across the country. Because that decision broadly expands the definition of a “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), employees of franchisees and staffing agencies will have an easier time bringing franchisors and user firms to the bargaining table.

The NLRB’s controversial new/final rule establishes “joint employment” not only when one company has the right to exert control over terms and conditions of another company’s employees, but also when evidence exists of reserved, unexercised, or indirect control over any working conditions. That includes obvious situations like hiring and firing, along with other conditions such as wages, benefits, scheduling, supervising, disciplining and directing.

Let’s see how we got here.

A brief history of the “joint employer” definition

Before 2015, the NLRB held that an entity had to share and actually exercise direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment to constitute a joint employer with another entity. Then, in 2015, the NLRB decided Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., in which it expanded the definition of “joint employer” to include entities who had indirect or reserved control over employees.

Three years later, in 2018, a federal court of appeals required the NLRB to reconsider its indirect control standard under Browning-Ferris. The NLRB accordingly issued a “final rule” in 2020 that excused alleged joint employers from bargaining unless employees could show they had “direct and immediate control” over essential terms and conditions of employment to constitute a joint employer. That rule stood until October 26th.

The new rule

NLRB Board members referred to the 2020 policy as “contrary to common-law agency principles that must govern the joint-employer standard.” Consistent with common-law agency principles, the Board concluded it should require an entity to negotiate with unionized workers when the entity has the “authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment,” regardless of whether they exercise that control or whether they do it directly or indirectly.

Because of the new/final rule, two or more employers will now be considered “joint employers” merely by sharing or co-determining matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment, such as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction.  Moreover, the NLRB will once again consider evidence of reserved and/or indirect control over these essential terms and conditions of employment when analyzing “joint-employer” status. In other words, instead of requiring actual direct control, the NLRB could consider even potential retained (but unexercised) indirect control over working conditions sufficient for a business to be a joint employer for labor relations purposes.

While the new rule is unquestionably broader, the NLRB did set some limitations. First, the NLRB classified the standard as fact-specific and noted it would consider whether an entity meets the joint-employer definition on a case-by-case basis. It also only requires a joint employer to bargain over the essential terms it has the authority to control. The party asserting that an entity is a joint employer has the burden of proof in making this determination.

What does the new rule mean for employers?

The new rule takes effect on December 26, 2023. The new/final rule will have implications obligating both businesses to potentially bargain with a duly certified union as exclusive bargaining representative—at least with respect to those working conditions over which they share control—while exposing both companies to joint unfair labor practice liability. The same is true for franchises and other business models where one company’s employees perform services benefitting another employer.

The rule could face legal challenges, but affected employers should review their relevant policies along with current and pending contracts with third parties to determine whether the policies or agreements reserve right to control any essential term or condition of another entity’s employees. Employers should also train their supervisors and managers to avoid actions that might leave the employer vulnerable to an argument it has direct or indirect control over another entity’s employees.

 

 

Related Attorneys

Best Lawyers Releases “Best Law Firms 2023”

by

U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, for the 13th consecutive year, collaboratively announce the release of the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings. Brunini Law Firm has been recognized in the following categories.

  • Metropolitan Tier 1
    • Jackson-MS
      • Administrative / Regulatory Law
      • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
      • Bet-the-Company Litigation
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law
      • Commercial Finance Law
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Commercial Transactions / UCC Law
      • Communications Law
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law – Management
      • Energy Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Land Use & Zoning Law
      • Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants
      • Litigation – Antitrust
      • Litigation – Banking & Finance
      • Litigation – Bankruptcy
      • Litigation – Construction
      • Litigation – Environmental
      • Litigation – ERISA
      • Litigation – Labor & Employment
      • Litigation – Land Use & Zoning
      • Litigation – Real Estate
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
      • Mergers & Acquisitions Law
      • Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law
      • Oil & Gas Law
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants
      • Real Estate Law
      • Tax Law
      • Trademark Law
      • Trusts & Estates Law
    • Tupelo
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
  • Metropolitan Tier 2
    • Jackson-MS
      • Appellate Practice
      • Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
      • Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
      • Energy Regulatory Law
      • Litigation – Health Care
      • Litigation – Intellectual Property
      • Litigation – Securities
      • Litigation – Trusts & Estates
      • Natural Resources Law
      • Nonprofit / Charities Law
    • Tupelo
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
  • Metropolitan Tier 3
    • Jackson-MS
      • Corporate Governance Law
      • Health Care Law
      • Labor Law – Management
      • Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers

Brunini Welcomes Treva McInnis

by

Treva McInnis joins our firm with 16 years of experience.  She has represented clients in commercial transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, entity formation, purchase and sale of real estate, commercial loans, as well as giving clients day to day business counsel.

“We are excited to welcome Treva to our team,” said Charlie Penick, Corporate Division Chairman.  “She is an outstanding attorney with significant experience that will add to the depth and expertise of our Firm’s commercial practice.”

Treva is a graduate of the University of Southern Mississippi and received her J.D. from Mississippi College.

Solar Farms in Mississippi

by

by Gene Wasson

Several solar farms have been built in Mississippi, and several solar companies are in Mississippi contacting landowners now to lease land for many more solar farms.

Existing solar farms are scattered across Mississippi in locations such as Hattiesburg, Sumrall, Ruleville, Jackson and Louisville and on lands ranging from Delta cropland to pastureland and gently rolling forested lands in other areas.

Many additional solar farms are in the planning or leasing stages.  Solar companies are busy contacting landowners across Mississippi about leasing land, particularly lands located near high voltage transmission lines, electric substations and highways.

If you are a landowner who has been contacted about leasing your land for a solar farm, the revenue can be enticing.  Typically, solar leases involve a three to five year option period and, if the company exercises its option, a potential 25 to 50 year lease term.  During the option period, the solar company pays a small amount per acre per year (typically, $30/acre or more) while it studies the suitability of the property for a solar farm and while the solar company seeks to obtain power purchase agreements with buyers of the electricity and an interconnection agreement with a local utility to transmit the electricity from the solar farm.

If the solar company exercises the option, the landowner would grant a lease to the solar company at a rent of several hundred dollars per acre.  The solar company would construct a solar farm of up to several hundred acres that might be located on one or several properties and then commence operation of the solar farm to generate electricity for many years.

Due to the option period and the length of any resulting solar lease, there are many issues for a landowner to consider when negotiating a solar lease, such as the landowner’s use of and access to the property not occupied by the solar farm, insurance against liability if someone is hurt on the solar farm, removal of the solar farm when the lease ends, etc.

Our experience with several solar farms to date is that each situation presents many similar issues but also issues unique to that particular land and landowner including price, risk tolerance and protection of that particular land and land owner.

 

Gene Wasson has been practicing energy, environmental and real estate law in Mississippi for over thirty years.

Related Attorneys

BRUNINI ATTORNEYS RECOGNIZED IN THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA© 2023 EDITION

by

We are pleased to announce that 34 Brunini attorneys have been recognized in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Congratulations to:

Lawyer of the Year 2023

  • Sheldon G. Alston – Land Use and Zoning Law
  • William D. Drinkwater – Litigation – Real Estate
  • John M. Flynt – Administrative / Regulatory Law
  • John M. Flynt – Commercial Transactions / UCC Law
  • Karen E. Howell – Trademark Law
  • Samuel C. Kelly – Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
  • James A. McCullough II – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
  • James A. McCullough II – Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law
  • James A. McCullough II – Litigation – Bankruptcy
  • William C. Penick IV – Nonprofit / Charities Law
  • William C. Penick IV – Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law
  • Joseph E. Varner III – Trusts and Estates
  • Joseph E. Varner III – Mergers and Acquisitions Law
  • Gene Wasson – Natural Resources Law

Ones To Watch – 2023

    • Alston F. Ludwig(2021)
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction Law
    • R. Lane Bobo (2021)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction Law
      • Health Care Law
    • Jacob A. Bradley (2021)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction Law
      • Litigation – Construction
    • Drew C. Bigelow (2021)
      • Corporate Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Trusts and Estates

 

  • Jackson, MS
    • John M. Flynt (2011)
      • Administrative / Regulatory Law
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Commercial Finance Law
      • Commercial Transactions / UCC Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Elder Law
      • Mergers and Acquisitions Law
      • Real Estate Law
    • James L. Halford (2007)
      • Administrative / Regulatory Law
      • Communications Law
      • Energy Law
      • Energy Regulatory Law
    • John E. Milner (1993)
      • Administrative / Regulatory Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Government Relations Practice
      • Litigation – Environmental
    • Gene Wasson (2018)
      • Administrative / Regulatory Law
      • Energy Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Litigation – Environmental
      • Mining Law
      • Natural Resources Law
      • Oil and Gas Law
      • Real Estate Law
    • William Trey Jones III (2003)
      • Appellate Practice
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Litigation – Environmental
      • Litigation – Labor and Employment
      • Litigation – Trusts and Estates
    • R. David Kaufman (2003)
      • Appellate Practice
      • Bet-the-Company Litigation
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants
      • Litigation – Antitrust
      • Litigation – Securities
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants
    • M. Patrick McDowell (2012)
      • Appellate Practice
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Litigation – Securities
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Trade Secrets Law
    • Samuel C. Kelly (2006)
      • Arbitration
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction Law
      • Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
      • Litigation – Construction
    • William D. Drinkwater (2020)
      • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Land Use and Zoning Law
      • Litigation – Banking and Finance
      • Litigation – Bankruptcy
      • Litigation – Land Use and Zoning
      • Litigation – Real Estate
      • Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law
    • James A. McCullough II (2012)
      • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Commercial Finance Law
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Energy Law
      • Litigation – Bankruptcy
      • Litigation – ERISA
      • Litigation – Health Care
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law
    • Ken Harmon (2018)
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Oil and Gas Law
      • Real Estate Law
    • William C. Penick IV (2016)
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Mergers and Acquisitions Law
      • Nonprofit / Charities Law
      • Tax Law
      • Trusts and Estates
    • Warren Ken Rogers (2015)
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Commercial Finance Law
      • Commercial Transactions / UCC Law
      • Corporate Governance Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Mergers and Acquisitions Law
    • Walter S. Weems (1999)
      • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
      • Commercial Finance Law
      • Commercial Transactions / UCC Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Mergers and Acquisitions Law
      • Tax Law
    • Lynne K. Green (2003)
      • Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Elder Law
      • Tax Law
      • Trusts and Estates
    • Matthew W. Allen (2016)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Sheldon G. Alston (2016)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
      • Land Use and Zoning Law
      • Litigation – Labor and Employment
      • Litigation – Land Use and Zoning
      • Litigation – Real Estate
      • Litigation and Controversy – Tax
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Norman E. Bailey (2016)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Trademark Law
    • Cody C. Bailey (2020)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction Law
      • Litigation – Construction
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
    • R. Richard Cirilli Jr (2016)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Health Care Law
      • Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants
      • Litigation – Health Care
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants
    • Karen E. Howell (2018)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Copyright Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
      • Land Use and Zoning Law
      • Litigation – ERISA
      • Litigation – Land Use and Zoning
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Trademark Law
    • John E. Wade (2008)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Land Use and Zoning Law
      • Litigation – Health Care
      • Litigation – Land Use and Zoning
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
    • Ron A. Yarbrough (2007)
      • Construction Law
      • Litigation – Construction
    • Stephen J. Carmody (2009)
      • Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
      • Employment Law – Management
      • Labor Law – Management
      • Litigation – ERISA
      • Litigation – Intellectual Property
      • Litigation – Labor and Employment
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants
    • Christopher R. Fontan (2019)
      • Employment Law – Management
      • Litigation – Labor and Employment
      • Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers
    • Curt Hebert (2023)
      • Energy Regulatory Law
    • Claire W. Ketner (2022)
      • Litigation – Labor and Employment
    • Joseph E. Varner III (2012)
      • Mergers and Acquisitions Law
      • Tax Law
      • Trusts and Estates
  • Columbus, MS
    • J. Gordon Flowers (2009)
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Environmental Law
      • Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Scott F. Singley (2022)
      • Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants

https://www.bestlawyers.com

Related Attorneys