Labor-law disputes

Representing the bus driver in the complaint proceeding, widely commented on in the media, regarding the driver's arrest. The court agreed with the Law Firm's position and found that the actions of the police were incorrect.

The victory of the Law Firm before the Supreme Court in the case regarding the employees’ obligations of submitting to a preventive breath test (II PK 199/17). The ruling of the Supreme Court has an important practical significance. So far, the position that an employee cannot be punished by the employer for the refusal to be submitted to a breath test itself, unless there has been a justified suspicion regarding his/her sobriety has prevailed in jurisprudence.

Representing a client in a case regarding  employees’ discrimination due to the date of  establishing the employment relationship. The case has ended in the victory before the Supreme Court (II PK 16/15). Taking into account the cassation appeal of the Law Firm, the Supreme Court has decided that the date of starting employment in the Company cannot be deemed to be a basis for  differentiating employees, as it does not refer either to the plaintiff’s personal characteristics or to the prohibited criterion of differentiating due to employment for the definite or indefinite period of time (or full-time or part-time employment).