Jump to Navigation

Wrongful Termination

Wrongful Termination and Employment Law Attorneys

Wrongful termination is an action brought against an employer for any illegal firing of an employee. In most cases, an employee is in an "at-will" employment arrangement where an employer can fire the employee at any time, for any reason. However, the employer cannot fire the employee for any illegal reasons, including for example: retaliation for reporting wrongdoing, discrimination, or whistleblowing.

If you believe that you were wrongfully terminated from a position, we can protect your rights against an employer. At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, we are dedicated to achieving positive results for our clients' complex and individual cases.

Wrongful termination is illegal. Protect your rights. Call (302) 529-0121 today or contact us by e-mail for a consultation.

Assessing Your Wrongful Termination Claim

At the outset of your case, we will assess your interests, rights, and potential outcomes in pursuing a claim. Typically, we will conduct a cost-benefit analysis, determining whether the expense and resources put forth are worth the potential results in your case. As your attorney, we will always give you an honest assessment, considering potential risks and costs of litigation. If we choose to proceed with your claim, you can trust we will remain an aggressive advocate, dedicated to the outcome of your case, including maximizing your monetary recovery.

We are experienced in wrongful termination cases involving:

  • Discrimination
  • Age
  • Disability and illness
  • Race
  • Breach of employment contract
  • Sex discrimination
  • Retaliation and whistleblowing

Illness, Disability and Age Discrimination

Cases involving disability or illness are often complex. Proving that you were unfairly passed over for a promotion or suffered discrimination may be more difficult if you suffer from an illness that makes it difficult to perform your work duties. We are experienced in handling claims involving disabled or ill individuals or individuals who have suffered discrimination because of age. These cases involve a more in-depth investigation of facts, corporate policies and actions, and state and federal laws. We know how to assess your case and pursue your rights in the event of illness, disability or age discrimination that results in wrongful termination.

Contact a Lawyer You Can Trust

Call (302) 529-0121 today or contact our office by e-mail to schedule an initial consultation to discuss your case. We are conveniently located safely in the Wilmington suburbs at Lancaster Pike (Rte. 48) and Centre Road (Rte. 141).

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Review Us