Of the 41 lawyers recognized, 12 of the firm’s attorneys were recognized for the very first time and 12 attorneys were recognized as Ones to Watch. 

Best Lawyers has employed the same transparent methodology for more than 35 years, based entirely on peer review. 

The following includes all Firm attorneys named and areas in which they are recognized:

Miami

• Mitchell A. Bierman (Administrative / Regulatory Law; Government Contracts; Government Relations Practice)
• Lewis R. Cohen (Banking and Finance Law; Real Estate Law)
• Jeffrey Decarlo (Commercial Litigation)
• Ignacio G. Del Valle (Real Estate Law)
• Alan K. Fertel (Sports Law)
• Chad S. Friedman (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Edward G. Guedes (Appellate Practice) 
• Stephen J. Helfman (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Juan P. Loumiet (Litigation – Real Estate; Real Estate Law)
• Justin Luger (Commercial Litigation)
• Paul Ryder (Employment Law Management)
• Clifford A. Schulman (Environmental Law, Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Joseph H. Serota (Commercial Litigation)
• Eduardo M. Soto (Real Estate Law)
• Richard Jay Weiss (Government Relations Practice) 
• Laura Wendell (Appellate Practice)
• David M. Wolpin (Employment Law – Management; Government Relations Practice)
• Jake Bland (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation; Litigation – Construction)
• Daniela Cimo (Ones to Watch: Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Roger C. Pou (Pnes to Watch: Municipal Law)
• Caroline G. Saiz (Ones to Watch: Litigation – Labor and Employment)
• Samantha W. Soto (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management; Litigation – Labor and Employment)
• Alejandro Uribe (Ones to Watch: Land Use and Zoning Law)

Fort Lauderdale

• Mitchell J. Burnstein (Commercial Litigation; Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law)
• Jamie A. Cole (Commercial Litigation)
• Paul R. Gougelman (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Michael J. Kurzman (Construction Law; Litigation – Construction)
• Matthew H. Mandel (Commercial Litigation)
• Eric L. Stettin (Commercial Litigation)
• Susan L. Trevarthen (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Peter D. Waldman (Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law)
• Anne R. Flanigan (Ones to Watch: Appellate Practice; Civil Right Law; Commercial Litigation)
• Narinah Jean-Baptiste (Ones to Watch: Municipal Law)
• Scott Mullin (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)
• Alison F. Smith (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management)

Boca Raton

• Howard D. DuBosar (Commercial Litigation)
• Andrew S. Maurodis (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Brett J. Schneider (Litigation – Labor and Employment, Employment Law – Management)
• Harrison R. DuBosar (Ones to Watch: Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation) 
• Ryan Hudak (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management)

Tampa, FL

• Sarah L. Johnston (Government Relations Practice)

The post WSHC+B Attorneys Selected For Inclusion In The Best Lawyers In America 2024 appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The PWFA expands upon existing federal laws prohibiting pregnancy discrimination.  Specifically, pregnancy discrimination is already prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires covered employers to treat employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions the same as other similarly situated employees. Additionally, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with certain conditions related to pregnancy if that condition qualifies as a disability, such as diabetes that develops during pregnancy.  However, many other common pregnancy-related conditions are not covered under the ADA.  

The PWFA extends protections similar to those provided under the ADA to employees and applicants with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.  According to recent guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), examples of possible reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions may include:

• The ability to sit or drink water; 
• Closer parking; 
• Flexible hours; 
• Appropriately sized uniforms and safety apparel; 
• Additional break time to use the bathroom, eat, and rest; 
• Leave or time off to recover from childbirth; and 
• Being excused from strenuous activities and/or activities that involve exposure to compounds not safe for pregnancy. 

Under the PWFA, covered employers will also be prohibited from:

• Requiring an employee to accept an accommodation without a discussion about the accommodation between the worker and the employer;
• Denying a job or other employment opportunities to a qualified employee or applicant based on the person’s need for a reasonable accommodation;
• Requiring an employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided that would allow the employee to continue working;
• Retaliating against an individual for reporting or opposing unlawful discrimination under the PWFA or participating in a PWFA proceeding (such as an investigation); or
• Interfering with any individual’s rights under the PWFA.
• In light of new law, covered employers may want to consider taking the following actions:
• Analyzing potential accommodations that could be provided to pregnant employees for known limitations;
• Conducting training for human resources personnel and supervisors to ensure they understand how to appropriately respond to accommodation requests; and
• Reviewing and updating accommodation policies to ensure compliance with the PWFA.

The EEOC will begin accepting charges under the PWFA on June 27, 2023. 

Should you have any questions about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, please feel free to contact any member of our Labor and Employment team.

The information contained in this document does not constitute legal advice.

The post Client Alert – Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Under the Safety in Private Spaces Act, a covered entity that maintains a restroom and/or changing facility, must at a minimum, have a restroom and/or changing facility designated for exclusive use by females and for exclusive use by males. The Act defines a person’s sex as, “indicated by the person’s sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, and internal and external genitalia present at birth.” A covered entity may have unisex restrooms and changing facilities, though it must only be intended for a single occupant or a family. In a unisex restroom, a covered entity will be required to ensure that the restroom is enclosed by floor-to-ceiling walls and is accessed by a full door with a secure lock that prevents another individual from entering while being used. 

The Act provides the following limited circumstances for a person to enter a restroom or changing facility designated for the opposite sex:

• To accompany another person to chaperone a child under the age of 12;
• To accompany an elderly or disabled person, as defined by Florida Statutes Section 825.101 and 760.22;
• For law enforcement purposes; 
• For emergencies (medical or otherwise); and
• For custodial, maintenance, or inspection purposes.

Under the Act, the applicable governmental entity for each public building under its jurisdiction will need to establish disciplinary procedures for any employee of the governmental entity who unlawfully enters a restroom (employee restroom or public restroom) or changing facility and refuses to depart when asked to do so. A person who unlawfully enters a restroom or changing room in a public building and refuses to depart when asked to do so by an employee of the governmental entity for the public building will have committed the criminal offense of trespass as provided by Florida Statute Section 810.08. On July 1, 2024, members of the public will be permitted to submit complaints to the Attorney General relating to covered entities that fail to meet the specific requirements under the Act. 

A covered entity that fails to comply with the requirements of the Act is subject to penalties and to licensure or regulatory disciplinary action, as applicable. The penalties detailed in the Act include the Attorney General bringing a civil action to enforce the Act against any covered entity beginning on July 1, 2024. Specifically, the Attorney General may seek injunctive relief. If a covered entity is found to have willfully violated the Act, the Attorney General may seek to impose a fine of up to $10,000.  

The following covered entities will be required to submit documentation to its applicable governing body detailing their compliance with the Act within one year after being established, or if such covered entity was established before July 1, 2023, then no later than April 1, 2024:  

• Correctional institutions; 
• Detention facilities; 
• K-12 educational institutions or facilities;
• State universities;
• Postsecondary educational institutions or facilities; and
• Juvenile correctional facilities or juvenile prisons. 

We anticipate that the constitutionality of the new law will be challenged pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution. Nonetheless, all covered entities should be prepared to comply with the provisions in the Act beginning on July 1, 2023. 

Should you have any questions about the Safety in Private Spaces Act, please feel free to contact any member of our Labor and Employment team.

The information contained in this document does not constitute legal advice

The post Client Alert – Safety in Private Spaces Act appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Super Lawyers recognizes distinguished attorneys who have undergone a rigorous screening process and who are ultimately selected for inclusion in their annual list of exceptional legal professionals. Published by Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers is a rating service of attorneys from more than 70 practice areas and determines its rankings through independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Only the top 5 percent of outstanding lawyers in Florida are rated by Super Lawyers, while no more than 2.5 percent of lawyers under 40 years old or who have practiced for fewer than 10 years are selected as Rising Stars.

The Firm’s recognized attorneys are listed below.

Miami

Recognized as Super Lawyers

• Mitchell A. Bierman
• Alan K. Fertel
• Edward G. Guedes
• Joseph H. Serota

Recognized as Rising Star

• Justin D. Luger
• Richard Rosengarten

Fort Lauderdale

Recognized as Super Lawyers

• Mitchell J. Burnstein
• Jamie A. Cole
• Susan Trevarthen
• Peter D. Waldman

Recognized as Rising Stars

• Candice Balmori
• Anne Reilly Flanigan
• Alicia Gonzalez
• Chanae L. Wood

Boca Raton

Recognized as Super Lawyers

• Howard D. DuBosar
• Alen H. Hsu
• Brett J. Schneider

Recognized as Rising Stars

• Harrison R. DuBosar

The post WSHC+B ATTORNEYS RECOGNIZED AS 2023 SUPER LAWYERS AND RISING STARS appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Brett stated that it is legal for companies to install software on employees’ computers to track productivity, but he recommended companies let their workers know that their digital activity is being monitored.

As a Florida Bar Board Certified attorney in Labor and Employment Law, Brett helps public and private sector employers resolve issues in a prompt and efficient manner.

Click here to read the full interview.

The post Brett J. Schneider Discusses Employer Rights to Monitor Work Devices with CBS12 News appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Brett told Law.com that current conditions and the growing sophistication of clients’ legal needs have led to a growing preference for fixed fees.

“I think a lot of clients appreciate the certainty of that, knowing what they’re in for,” he continued, “the one area that’s challenging is litigation because of the uncertainty.” 

Read the full Law.com article here.

The post Brett Schneider discusses the importance of transparency when it comes to legal fees with Law.com appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The firm’s attorneys included in the guide are listed below.

Top Lawyers

Mitchell A. Bierman – Government Relations, Litigation

Mitchell J. Burnstein – Eminent Domain

Jamie A. Cole – Government Litigation, Corporate And Business Litigation

Andrew Demers – Banking and Financial Institutions

Alan K. Fertel – Entertainment And Sports, Civil Litigation

Chad S. Friedman – Land Use, Zoning and Environmental Law

Edward G. Guedes – Appellate Law

Alen H. Hsu – Business and Real Estate Litigation

Michael J. Kurzman – Construction Law

John Quick – Litigation

Anthony L. Recio – Real Estate – Land Use And Zoning

Brett J. Schneider – Employment Law

Clifford A. Schulman – Environmental, Real Estate – Land Use And Zoning

Joseph H. Serota – Corporate And Business Litigation, Government Litigation

Marc I. Solomon – Business Organizations, Acquisitions and Conveyances

Richard J. Weiss – Government

Rana M. Gorzeck – Banking or Commercial Real Estate

Lewis R. Cohen – Banking or Commercial Real Estate

Top Up and Comers

Alicia Gonzalez – Real Estate, Eminent Domain

Justin D. Luger – Litigation

Edward O. Martos – Land Use And Zoning

Click here to view the full 2022 South Florida Legal Guide.

The post WSHC+B attorneys named among Top Lawyers and Top Up and Comers in the 2022 South Florida Legal Guide appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Gov. DeSantis is likely to sign the bill into law given his support of the bill when it was introduced in December 2021. Assuming that happens, the amendments will take effect July 1, 2022.

The Act provides that the restriction is not intended to prohibit discussion of the barred concepts as part of a training, as long as the training is done in an “objective manner.” However, there is little doubt that these amendments will effectively chill Florida employers from providing Diversity and Inclusion training and—potentially—sexual harassment training until there is further guidance on how this law will be interpreted by courts.

What do employers need to do now? It would be prudent for covered Florida employers to review their mandatory trainings—especially those trainings that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. If there is any question that a particular training module could be perceived as “espousing” an idea that one race, color, sex, or national origin should be held accountable for past actions of its members, or that one set of people is historically oppressed or privileged, the employer should consider making the module voluntary. Again, this law prohibits mandatory training or instruction; so, among others, a potential way to avoid liability is to create a policy or disclaimer that makes certain training components optional. We would be happy to help you navigate through this new development. Please do not hesitate to reach out to either of us or any member of our team.

The information contained in this document does not constitute legal advice.

The post What Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” Means for Florida Employers appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

In light of the Court’s decision, Florida employers should be mindful of recent laws enacted by the Florida state legislature, including HB-1’s prohibition against employer vaccine mandates unless such mandates provide broad exemptions for religious and medical reasons, as well as exemptions for documented natural immunity.

The information contained in this document does not constitute legal advice.

The post Supreme Court Just Stayed Enforcement of President Biden’s Vaccine Mandate appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) requiring that private employers with 100 or more employees implement a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, unless they adopt a policy requiring employees to wear face coverings at work and to be tested for COVID-19 at least once per week. Covered employers are also required to:

• Determine the vaccination status of each employee, obtain acceptable proof of vaccination status from employees, and maintain records and a roster of each employee’s status.
• Require employees to provide prompt notice when they test positive for COVID-19 and remove employees who test positive from the workplace.
• Ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated is tested for COVID-19 at least weekly (if the employee is in the workplace at least once a week) or within 7 days before returning to work (if the employee is away from the workplace for a week or longer).
• Ensure that, in most circumstances, any unvaccinated employees wear a face covering when indoors or when occupying a vehicle with another person for work purposes. 

Employers must comply with most of the ETS provisions by December 5, 2021, though employers have an additional 30 days to comply with testing requirements. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has announced that he intends to challenge the ETS in federal court. Nevertheless, covered employers should begin to formulate policies and procedures to comply with the ETS because waiting for the results of potential litigation could leave employers with insufficient time to comply should the ETS be upheld. 

We are continuing to monitor the situation closely and will provide updated information upon further developments. We would be happy to help you navigate preparing a policy that addresses each of these issues, as they may be applicable to your operations. Please do not hesitate to reach out to the Weiss Serota Labor & Employment Division with any questions or concerns.

The information contained in this document does not constitute legal advice.

The post OSHA Issues Emergency Temporary Standard Requiring COVID-19 Vaccination or Testing appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.