All posts by natecalef@gmail.com

Cable and Satellite TV Installers

We have successfully brought class action cases around the country on behalf of cable TV and satellite TV installation and repair technicians, who have been wrongfully classified as independent contractors and therefore denied lawful overtime, as well as being subject to unlawful deductions from their pay. We have brought such cases in the states of Florida, Michigan, Illinois, South Carolina, and Massachusetts.

Tips, Gratuities, and Service Charges

We pioneered litigation on behalf of tipped employees who have not received the total proceeds of tips and service charges paid by customers for their benefit. For more than 20 years, we have represented thousands of waitstaff in many dozens of lawsuits against restaurants, hotels, country clubs, catering companies, and other establishments that have failed to distribute, or have skimmed from, employee gratuities, or allowed these gratuities to be shared with ineligible employees (such as management or non-service employees).

We have won jury trials in several tips cases, as well as a number of ground-breaking appellate decisions, summary judgment orders, and settlements. Following our original work developing the law protecting tipped employees in Massachusetts, we have brought these cases around the country, including in Hawaii, Florida, New York, and California. In Hawaii, after two trips to the Hawaii Supreme Court, we established the right of waitstaff employees to recover under the wage laws for service charges not distributed in full to employees.

If you have worked as a service employee anywhere in the country, and have been required to share your tips with management or non-service employees, or have not received the total proceeds of service charges billed to customers, feel free to contact us for a consultation.

S.F.’s Moscone Center illegally kept servers’ tips, lawsuit alleges
San Francisco Chronicle | June, 2023

Is a dine-in service fee a tip? Former servers allege in suit they are owed gratuities from Jon and Vinny’s
Los Angeles Times | June, 2023

S.F. Marriott Hotel illegally kept $9 million in workers’ tips, judge says
San Francisco Chronicle | May, 2023

Calif. Supreme Court allows food servers to proceed with suit over ‘service charges’
San Francisco Chronicle | January, 2020

Hilton Hotel Accused of Swiping Staff Tips
LawyersandSettlements.com | April, 2017

Court revives SF hotel workers’ suit over tips
SF Gate | March, 2017

Four Seasons To Fork Over $4M To Settle Server Tips Suit
Law360 | October, 2013

Hawaii High Court OKs Worker Wage Suits Over State Tip Law
Law360 | July, 2013

Hawaii Supreme Court rules in favor of workers in hotel tip case
Star Advertiser | July, 2013

Tips Scams Revealed (video)
TEDxBeaconStreet | November, 2013

Starbucks restructures ‘shift supervisor’ position in Mass
Nation’s Restaurant News | January, 2013

Starbucks Workers Tips Suit Scores $14 Million Win Against Coffee Giant
The Huffington Post | November, 2012

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan: Challenging Corporate Power and Tips Abuse
Lawyers and Settlements | April, 2008

Logan skycaps win fight for tips
Boston Globe | April, 2008

Wave of tip pooling lawsuits snares more operators
Nation’s Restaurant News | October, 2006

Steak house may be liable for $2.5m Suit against Lynn may have wide effect
The Boston Globe | July, 2006

Overtime and Other Wage Violations

Much of our work involves cases challenging employers’ failure to pay overtime to their employees for working more than 40 hours per week. Employers often fail to pay time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 per week by claiming that their employees are “exempt” from overtime. In many cases, employees are not actually exempt, even when they believe they are. Even employees who are “salaried” or receive high pay may be eligible to receive time-and-a-half for overtime hours if their employer has not followed various rules that are required for them to maintain “exempt” status.

We currently have cases challenging employers’ overtime violations across the country, including cases in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.  In 2015, we won a landmark ruling from the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals that store managers can be entitled  to overtime pay, even when they are classified as exempt from overtime.

If you have questions about whether you should have been paid overtime by your employer, feel free to contact us.

Will the new overtime regulations help or hurt the economy?
PBS NewsHour | May, 2016

The Legal Battle Over Wage, Hour & Overtime | See video here
American Law Journal | December, 2015

Dunkin’ Donuts manager eligible for overtime pay, court rules
The Boston Globe | December, 2015

A lawyer and her client weigh in on the overtime scam
PBS | June, 2015

Paramount restaurant sued on overtime
Boston Globe | May, 2015

Local carnival co. faces suit over low wages
The Daily News | June, 2013

Upper Crust pizza case now topped with poetic justice
The Boston Globe | December, 2012

Suit alleges Upper Crust took back workers’ pay
Boston Globe | July, 2010

Shannon Liss-Riordan

Biography

Shannon Liss-Riordan is widely recognized as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ class action employment lawyers. She has reshaped industries through her pioneering successes representing tipped workers, employees misclassified as independent contractors, and low wage workers who have been denied overtime, minimum wage, and other wage protections. Best Lawyers in America has called her “the reigning plaintiffs’ champion” (2013) and has said she is “probably the best known wage class action lawyer on the plaintiff side in this area, if not the entire country” (2015). Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly described her on its “Power List” (2009) as a “Tenacious class-action plaintiffs’ lawyer [who] strikes fear in big-firm employment attorneys throughout Boston with her multi-million-dollar victories on behalf of strippers, waiters, skycaps and other non-exempt employees.” Politico named her to its guide to the “Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics in 2016”.  San Francisco Magazine has said that “Liss-Riordan has achieved a kind of celebrity unseen in the legal world since Ralph Nader sued General Motors.”

For more than 20 years, Ms. Liss-Riordan has brought and won groundbreaking lawsuits that have shaped the law protecting workers in the food service, cleaning, adult entertainment, trucking, and other industries. A decade ago, she pioneered litigation representing workers in a number of cases against “gig economy” companies that save on labor costs by misclassifying employees as independent contractors. She represents employees nationally, at the trial court and appellate levels, including seven landmark victories at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Some of her most notable cases include victories against Starbucks, FedEx, and American Airlines. Fifteen years ago, she began the legal strategy of filing mass arbitrations against employers who use arbitration agreements to protect themselves from class actions. The Boston Globe has profiled her work twice as a “legal champion” fighting for the rights of low wage workers, and she has also been profiled in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Mother Jones, and the LA Times.

A graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard College, Ms. Liss-Riordan co-founded Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. in 2009. Previously she was a partner at a plaintiff-side employment and union law firm in Boston where she worked for more than 10 years after clerking for a federal court judge for two years following law school. In 2019, Ms. Liss-Riordan ran for the U.S. Senate in the Democratic primary for Massachusetts. In 2022, she ran to be Massachusetts Attorney General, a campaign in which she was endorsed by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, and many other elected officials and labor unions.

Profiles

Trailblazing Women In Labor Law – Shannon Liss-Riordan
Law360 | March, 2022

Worker Rights Atty Blazes Trail With Whole Foods, Uber Cases
Law360 | July, 2020

Labor Litigator
Harvard Magazine | March – April, 2017

Uber’s Worst Nightmare
San Francisco Magazine | May, 2016

Meet the attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen California tech firms
LA Times | January, 2016

Meet “Sledgehammer Shannon,” the Lawyer Who Is Uber’s Worst Nightmare
Mother Jones | December, 2015

Meet the Boston Lawyer Who’s Putting Uber on Trial
Wall Street Journal | November, 2015

‘Sledgehammer Shannon:’ The attorney taking on Uber and others in the sharing economy
Bizwomen | September, 2015

What Strippers Can Teach Uber
Medium | April, 2015

Lawyer fights for low-wage workers’ rights
Boston Globe | December, 2012

Skycaps and waiters find a legal champion
Boston Globe | April, 2008

Recognitions

America’s Top 200 Lawyers, Forbes (2024) (one of 5 plaintiffs’ employment attorneys)

Top Women of Law, Circle of Excellence, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2021)

Employee Attorney of the Year (national), Benchmark Litigation (2020)

Robert Morris, Sr. Award for Courage in Litigation, American Board of Trial Advocates, Massachusetts Chapter (2020)

“Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics”, Politico (2016)

Top Women of Law, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2014)

Best Lawyers in America (each year since 2008)

Massachusetts Super Lawyers (each year since 2005)

Lawyer of the Year, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2002)

Major Appellate Rulings

Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 489 Mass. 356 (2022) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that franchisees may be employees for purposes of the Wage Act, overturning district court decision that held federal law to preempt Massachusetts law)

Lohnn v. International Business Machines, Inc. (IBM), C.A. No. 21-cv-6379 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2022), motion to stay denied, No. 22-32 (2d Cir. Feb. 8, 2022) (ordering the unsealing of documents in age discrimination case that IBM attempted to keep hidden through arbitration confidentiality agreement, including highly incriminating emails in which executives disparaged older workers as “dinobabies” and plotted how to make them “an extinct species”)

Lawson v. GrubHub, No. 18-15386 (9th Cir. 2021) (reinstating case challenging GrubHub’s misclassification of drivers in first and only case to date to go to trial against “gig economy” company)

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, 10 Cal.5th 944 (2021) (California Supreme Court decided that landmark Dynamex ABC test applies retroactively); 986 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2021), 923 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2019) (in a now 14-year-old case, holding that landmark Dynamex decision applies to misclassification claims against “cleaning franchisor”and applies to top-tier company in multi-tier “fissured employment” scheme; providing guidance on strength of ABC test for employment misclassification; and reinstating wage claims on behalf of janitors who challenged paying for their jobs and other wage violations)

Medina v. Equilon Enterprises, Inc., 68 Cal.App.5th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Shell, holding that it could be liable for wage violations committed by intermediary entity)

Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 WL 4814142 (9th Cir. 2020) (in nationwide case challenging driver misclassification, affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding Amazon drivers to be exempt from Federal Arbitration Act under transportation worker exemption)

Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2020) (in Massachusetts case challenging driver misclassification, affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding Amazon drivers to be exempt from Federal Arbitration Act under transportation worker exemption, as well as state law)

O’Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc., 41 Cal.App.5th 771 (2019) (holding that mandatory service charges may be gratuities under Calforrnia Labor Code)

Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 18-55462, (9th Cir. 2019) (reinstating wage claims against 7-Eleven and reversing district court’s denial of injunction for plaintiffs and potential class members facing choice of pursuing wage claims or keeping their jobs)

Maplebear dba Instacart v. Busick, 26 Cal.App.5th 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (rejecting attempt to vacate arbitrator award certifying wage class action on behalf of Instacart drivers)

Khanal v. San Francisco Hilton, Inc., No. 15-15493 (9th Cir. 2017) (banquet employees could bring claim for service charges not distributed to them, reversing order holding wage claims brought by union employees preempted by LMRA)

Williams v. Jani–King, 837 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming class certification in case challenging cleaning workers’ classification as independent contractor “franchisees” under Pennsylvania law)

Marzuq v. Cadete Enterprises, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21301 (1st Cir. 2015) (Dunkin Donuts general managers could be eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay by proving management was not their primary duty, distinguishing 1982 Burger King precedent, which had held fast food managers to be overtime-exempt)

Travers v. Flight Systems & Services, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21671 (1st Cir. 2015) (affirming jury verdict in favor of skycap who was terminated in retaliation for leading class action wage complaint challenging policy affecting skycaps’ tips and reinstating claim for front pay)

Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, 465 Mass. 607 (2013) (Supreme Judicial Court held that national cleaning company could be liable for misclassifying cleaning workers, notwithstanding that contracts were with intermediary companies)

Taylor v. Eastern Connection, 465 Mass. 191 (2013) (Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts law could apply to work performed outside of the state, due to choice-of-law provision in workers’ contracts)

Sample trial victories

Nnebe v. Daus, No. 06-cv-4991-RJS (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 16, 2023) (test case trial for 10 plaintiff New York taxi drivers in certified class action who suffered due process violations based on not being able to challenge their license suspension due to an arrest)

Ordono v. Marriott International, Inc., No. CGC-16-550454 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 2023) ($9 million verdict awarded to class of hotel waitstaff, in the first case to go to trial in California challenging employer’s failure to pay employees the total proceeds of “service charges”, which court held that reasonable customers believed were gratuities)

Lawson v. GrubHub, No. 15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2023) (in the first trial ever addressing whether a gig worker was misclassified as an independent contractor, court held that GrubHub driver should have been classified as an employee)

Norrell v. Spring Valley Country Club (Mass. Super. 2017) (class action jury verdict for waitstaff)

Travers v. Flight Systems & Services (D. Mass. 2014) (close to $1 million jury verdict in favor of skycap who was terminated in retaliation for bringing wage complaint about policy affecting skycaps’ tips)

DiFiore v. American Airlines (D. Mass. 2008) (jury verdict in favor of skycaps, finding that airline violated state tips law and interfered with skycaps’ relationship with passengers by charging $2 per bag and not allowing skycaps to keep the proceeds of the charge; verdict led to airline dropping charge nationwide) (damages award reversed on federal preemption grounds)

Benoit v. The Federalist, Inc. (Mass. Super. 2007) (class action jury verdict in favor of waitstaff who did not receive total proceeds of service charges added to function bills)

Bradley v. City of Lynn, 443 F.Supp.2d 145 (D.Mass. 2006) (class action verdict finding state civil service exam had disparate impact on minorities, resulting in statewide hiring of more than 60 minority firefighters and police officers)

Calcagno v. High Country Investor, Inc. d/b/a Hilltop Steakhouse (Mass. Super. 2006) (class action jury verdict finding management illegally skimmed servers’ gratuities)

Sprague v. United Airlines, Inc., 2002 WL 1803733 (D. Mass 2002) (judgment of $1.1 million in a discrimination case brought by deaf airline mechanic who had been denied employment based on disability)

Dahill v. Boston Police Department, 434 Mass. 233 (2001) (Supreme Judicial Court decided that Massachusetts law would diverge from federal law in prohibiting discrimination against individuals with correctable disabilities, resulting in hiring of hearing-impaired police officer candidate and jury verdict of nearly $1 million)

Education

Harvard Law School, J.D., 1996
Harvard College, A.B., 1990

Bar and Court Admissions

Member, State Bar of Massachusetts, 1999
Member, State Bar of New York, 1999
Member, State Bar of California, 2016

Admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit.

Ben Weber
Of Counsel

Ben Weber is a committed workers’ rights advocate with a lengthy record of public service. After graduating from law school in 2005, Ben was awarded an Equal Justice Works Fellowship and began work at Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, where he represented migrant farm workers in complex federal employment litigation throughout the South.

Prior to joining the firm, Ben worked for four years as Assistant Attorney General in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. Ben worked in the Attorney General’s Fair Labor Division, where he prosecuted employers for violations of Massachusetts’ wage laws.

Ben later worked in the Attorney General’s Administrative Law Division where he represented numerous state agencies and boards in cases challenging administrative decisions. During that time, Ben briefed and argued more than 30 cases in the Massachusetts Appeals Court and developed an expertise in many areas of administrative law, including unemployment, licensure, and parental rights.

Education

University of Iowa College of Law, J.D., 2005
Brandeis University, B.A., 1996

Morry Stein Award of Valor

Bar and Court Admissions

Member, State Bar of Massachusetts, 2008

Matthew Thomson

Matthew Thomson is a partner at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. and has proudly represented workers since he joined the firm in 2013.  His practice focuses mainly on class actions relating to the misclassification of employees as independent contractors and violations of wage and hour laws.  Matt also represents employees in gender, age, and handicap discrimination cases and wrongful termination and whistleblower cases.

Matt has represented employees from a number of industries, including delivery drivers, bread distributors, cable and satellite installation technicians, couriers, exotic dancers, waitstaff employees, automobile detailers, carnival workers, and movers.  These lawsuits have resulted in workers across the country recovering tens of millions of dollars in unpaid wages.  Matt has obtained class certification and summary judgment on behalf of workers in state and federal courts, and he has drafted winning appellate briefs in both federal and state courts.  Matt has also tried cases in state and federal courts as well as in arbitration.

Matt was recently part of the team of lawyers that obtained the first holding under California law that exotic dancers were “employees” of the club at which they worked pursuant to the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision.

In 2014, Matt and his colleagues obtained a jury verdict of close to $1 million for a municipal employee asserting whistleblower claims against his employer.

Matt has been named a “Rising Star” by Massachusetts Super Lawyers every year from 2015 to 2020. In 2015, he and his colleagues received the “Zealous Advocate Award” from Centro de Los Derechos Del Migrante for their efforts representing migrant workers in the carnival industry.

Prior to joining Lichten & Liss-Riordan, Matt gained extensive knowledge of civil litigation by serving as a law clerk to the Superior Courts of Massachusetts and Maine.

Representative Cases and Decisions

Gregory v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suff. Cty. C.A. No. 19-2728 (Mass. Super. Ct.) (co-lead counsel in lawsuit successfully challenging discriminatory use of juvenile court records to disqualify daycare workers from employment)

Carrow v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2019 WL 7184548 (D.N.J. Dec. 26, 2019) (decision granting class certification to New Jersey FedEx drivers asserting claims that they were misclassified as independent contractors)

Camp v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., 2019 WL 1472586, at *4 (D.N.H. Apr. 3, 2019) (decision dismissing defendant’s counterclaims and permitting conditional certification of FLSA collective action)

Johnson v. VCG-IS, LLC, No. 30-2015-00802813, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 5, 2018) (first decision under California’s “ABC” employment test to hold that exotic dancers are employees as a matter of law)

Vargas v. Spirit Delivery & Distribution Servs., Inc., 245 F.Supp.3d 268 (D. Mass. 2017) (decision denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granting class certification)

Saunders v. Getchell Agency, 2015 WL 1292594 (D. Me. Mar. 23, 2015) (decision granting class certification to group of caretakers asserting state law overtime claims)

Garcia v. E.J. Amusements, 98 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D. Mass. 2015) (decision granting class certification to group of migrant carnival workers)

Pace v. City of Lynn, Essex Cty. No. 11-1360 (Mass. Super. Ct.) (trial that resulted in $962,000 verdict for city employee under Massachusetts whistleblower statute)

In the News

Education

Northeastern University School of Law, J.D., 2011
Bowdoin College, B.A., 2006

Bar and Court Admissions

Member, State Bar of Massachusetts, 2011

Admitted to practice before the U.S. District of Massachusetts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Adelaide Pagano

Adelaide Pagano is a partner at Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. and a dedicated workers’ rights advocate. Adelaide represents employees in class action wage-and-hour cases, as well as in individual discrimination and retaliation cases. She is currently involved in a number of cases in which employees have been misclassified as independent contractors, including janitors for cleaning “franchise” companies, exotic dancers, and so-called “gig economy” workers for companies such as Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, and Amazon. She has also litigated numerous cases on behalf of tipped employees, including waiters, banquet servers, exotic dancers, and drivers.

Adelaide has obtained class certification and summary judgment on behalf of workers in state and federal courts and in arbitration. She served as class counsel alongside Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan in the federal court litigation in O’Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-3826-EMC (N.D. Cal.), which was the first lawsuit of its kind challenging misclassification of workers in the gig economy, culminating in a $20 million settlement on behalf of roughly 15,000 Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts. Since 2018, Adelaide has been consistently named a Rising Star by Massachusetts Super Lawyers.

Prior to her work at the firm, Adelaide worked as an intern for the DC Employment Justice Center in Washington DC and for SEIU Local 32BJ (formerly Local 615) in Boston, where she assisted with arbitrations on behalf of cleaning workers. Before law school, Adelaide worked as a paralegal at a union-side labor law firm, in Washington, DC.

Important Cases:

Ordono v. Marriott Int’l Inc., CGC-16-550454 (S.F. Super. Ct. April 19, 2023) (successful bench trial in favor of class of banquet waitstaff claiming the hotel violated California law by retaining a portion of service charges that patrons paid at banquet events)

Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., Case No. C 16-05961 WHA, 2022 WL 3046758 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2022) (granting class certification and summary judgment in favor of cleaning franchisees on claims that they were misclassified as independent contractors under California law)

Campbell v. Marshall Int’l, LLC, Case No. 20-C-5321, 2022 WL 3684571 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2022) (granting conditional certification in case involving exotic dancers alleging misclassification and wage violations under the FLSA)

Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. CV 18-40150-TSH, 2019 WL 3938053, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2019) (denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel arbitration and finding that Plaintiffs were exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1), aff’d 966 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2020)

Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel arbitration and finding that Plaintiffs were exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1), aff’d 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2020)

Gannon v. City of Bos., 476 Mass. 786, 73 N.E.3d 748 (2017) (Supreme Judicial Court reversed summary judgment for the employer in disability discrimination case, clarifying the standard for “direct evidence” disability discrimination cases under Massachusetts law)

Da Costa v. Vanguard Cleaning Sys., Inc., Middlesex Civ. A. No. 15-04743, 2017 WL 4817349 (Mass. Super. Sept. 29, 2017) (Fishman, J.) (granting summary judgment to cleaning franchisees who alleged they were misclassified under Massachusetts and Connecticut law)

Marino v. Oznemoc Inc. dba Centerfolds, Suffolk Civ. A. No. 15-2326-D (Mass. Super. Jan. 6, 2017) (Wilkins, J.) (granting class certification to a class of exotic dancers on their claims under the Tips Law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 § 152A)

Khanal v. San Francisco Hilton, Inc., 681 F. App’x 624, 625 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that banquet servers could bring claim for service charges not distributed to them, reversing order holding wage claims brought by union employees preempted by LMRA)

Education

Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude
Macalester College, BA in political science, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa

Bar and Court Admissions

Member, State Bar of Massachusetts, 2014

Admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. Court of Appeals, First, Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits

Thomas Fowler

Thomas Fowler represents employees in wage and hour class action litigation, discrimination claims, whistleblower claims, and labor disputes. He has represented employees from a wide variety of backgrounds, including delivery drivers, cable and satellite installers, municipal employees, and firefighters.

Thomas has practiced employment and labor law since graduating from law school. Passionate about justice in the workplace, he began his commitment to workers’ rights during his time at Denison University as a volunteer union organizer for the SEIU International in a campaign to help the college’s dining hall workers form a union. Thomas continued to dedicate himself to the cause of workers’ rights in law school, where he focused on employment and labor. Thomas was an active member of Boston University’s Housing, Employment, Family, and Disability Law Clinic, representing workers in discrimination and Family Medical Leave Act claims.

Prior to joining the firm, Thomas worked in the Employment Unit of Greater Boston Legal Services as a Boston University Public Interest Fellow. At Greater Boston Legal Services, Thomas worked on unemployment insurance cases, as well as wage and hour cases on behalf of those who could not afford legal representation. His work ranged from representing individual clients to focusing on systemic issues through legislative advocacy and class actions. During his time at Greater Boston Legal Services, Thomas also volunteered as an organizer for the UAW in a campaign to organize adjunct professors.

Education

Boston University Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 2013
Denison University, B.A., magna cum laude, 2010

Bar and Court Admissions

Member, State Bar of New York, 2014
Member, State Bar of Massachusetts, 2013

Admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

WELCOME TO LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

The Labor, Employment & Class Action Specialists

What We Do

Vindicating the rights of workers

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm that is dedicated to vindicating the rights of workers around the country through class action and individual litigation. The firm has brought and won landmark cases throughout the United States on behalf of workers who have been deprived of their wages, tips, and overtime, or wrongfully misclassified as independent contractors, or who have suffered discrimination or retaliation. The firm has been awarded the highest rating by virtually every recognized lawyer rating organization and has been recognized by numerous publications for its innovative and vigorous advocacy on behalf of workers.

Who We Are

Worker’s champion

The founding members of the firm, Harold Lichten and Shannon Liss-Riordan, have a combined more than 60 years of experience representing workers. Shannon Liss-Riordan, whose groundbreaking work has been profiled numerous times nationally, has been referred to as the “worker’s champion” and by her peers as the “reigning plaintiffs’ champion”. Both she and her partner Harold Lichten have argued numerous cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, as well as before the highest courts of Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New York. The firm has pioneered the law on behalf of tipped employees who have been deprived of their gratuities, or the proceeds of service charges, in states throughout the country, including Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Hawaii, and California. It has brought landmark litigation on behalf of Uber drivers, as well as workers for other so-called “gig economy” companies, and it has established and won numerous cases on behalf of workers who have been misclassified as independent contractors throughout the country, in a wide variety of industries, including the trucking, limo, cleaning, adult entertainment, cable installer, and call center industries. In addition, it has been a pioneer in the field of employment discrimination based on disability, race, and sex. Attorneys Harold Lichten and Shannon Liss-Riordan have tried many jury trials in state and federal court both as class actions and cases for individual workers, and have repeatedly won judgments in the millions of dollars.

Our Commitment to High Ethical Standards

High ethical standards

Additionally, Lichten & Liss-Riordan has been praised by judges for its handling of class action cases and its high ethical standards for ensuring that workers are treated fairly during the class action process. Unlike many large class action firms, Lichten & Liss-Riordan administers most of its settlements itself through its own in-house staff, thereby ensuring that clients have ready access to information and are treated fairly in the claims and settlement process. In addition, Lichten & Liss-Riordan refuses a practice known as reversion, in which unclaimed settlement funds are given back to the company that has been sued, and instead the firm requires that unclaimed funds be distributed to class members who have been located. In approving large settlements that the firm has reached, a number of judges have praised the firm’s conduct in such litigation.

Lichten & Liss-Riordan frequently co-counsels with cooperating and referring counsel, and welcomes referrals from across the country, particularly in the firm’s speciality areas regarding tipped employees and independent contractor misclassification.

What We Do

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu.

In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi.

Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero, sit amet adipiscing sem neque sed ipsum. Nam quam nunc, blandit vel, luctus pulvinar, hendrerit id, lorem. Maecenas nec odio et ante tincidunt tempus. Donec vitae sapien ut libero venenatis faucibus. Nullam quis ante. Etiam sit amet orci eget eros faucibus tincidunt. Duis leo. Sed fringilla mauris sit amet nibh. Donec sodales sagittis magna. Sed consequat, leo eget bibendum sodales, augue velit cursus nunc,

Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero, sit amet adipiscing sem neque sed ipsum. Nam quam nunc, blandit vel, luctus pulvinar, hendrerit id, lorem. Maecenas nec odio et ante tincidunt tempus. Donec vitae sapien ut libero venenatis faucibus. Nullam quis ante. Etiam sit amet orci eget eros faucibus tincidunt. Duis leo. Sed fringilla mauris sit amet nibh. Donec sodales sagittis magna. Sed consequat, leo eget bibendum sodales, augue velit cursus nunc,

Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero, sit amet adipiscing sem neque sed ipsum. Nam quam nunc, blandit vel, luctus pulvinar, hendrerit id, lorem. Maecenas nec odio et ante tincidunt tempus. Donec vitae sapien ut libero venenatis faucibus. Nullam quis ante. Etiam sit amet orci eget eros faucibus tincidunt. Duis leo. Sed fringilla mauris sit amet nibh. Donec sodales sagittis magna. Sed consequat, leo eget bibendum sodales, augue velit cursus nunc,