|

Inquiries into the background history of an employee have the potential to affect the salary set for an employee in the future. Questions such as,  “how much did you make in your previous job?” have the potential to legally tie up employees and not in a good way.  Though the question may lead to the formulation of a salary or not intentionally meant to do a harm, to some the interview question may sound like bait.  This is especially when it comes to women being more “woke” in a post-Trump era.  Typically, women minorities have had a history of earning less, as with other minorities and the pinch is felt during the interview process.

This salary question may come in pre-screening for an interview, during an interview or after the interview process. Several states have measures in place that now preclude employers from being able to ask employees about prior pay.  Does this curtail the gap between race and gender? Employers are generally looking for the standard set by industry but from a legal perspective, these standards are now viewed as being set with an imbalance and huge discrepancy.  That is why the courts have also stepped into place to interpret what is legal and not when it comes to this process.

There are companies that have moved forward and already adapted to the changes in the current legal climate.  For that reason, changes have been made to ensure that this type of question is not asked.  Hiring policies have been made to reflect in with some of the bigger names that do not wish to even take a legal risk or set a standard that would not be fair.  Continue reading ›

|

DiTommaso Lubin’s predecessor firm litigated a case that is now before the Illinois Supreme Court on Respondent’s appeal of 750 ILCS § 5/513 (“Section 513”) being declared unconstitutional.

When an Illinois Statute is declared by a court to be unconstitutional it can be directly appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court and it does not have to go through to the Appellate Court first. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 302(a)(1).

The Respondent in the underlying case, where Section 513 was declared by the circuit court to be unconstitutional filed a direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide if Section 513 is unconstitutional.

DiTommaso Lubin was retained by our client in the circuit court case to defend him in the appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The circuit court’s ruling that Section 513 is unconstitutional was only applicable to the facts of the case. Our client’s fundamental right of raising his child and his decision to guide his daughter to a more appropriate college through the tightening of his pocket-book strings was obstructed by Section 513.

Section 513 creates two separate classes of persons, those married with children and those unmarried, widowed, or divorced with children. This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all United States citizens regardless of their classification by the government. Continue reading ›

|

When small companies compete against larger, more established companies working in the same space, they often rely on their unique selling points to set them apart from their competition and establish their own niche in the marketplace. But succeeding with that tactic becomes much more difficult if your competition starts using your own tactics against you.

According to a recent lawsuit against Ray Borg, the UFC flyweight allegedly stole trade secrets and took them to a competitor, broke his contract with a gym and a management company without warning, and committed fraud, among other things.

The lawsuit was filed by Wild Bunch Management, which is run by Tim Vaughn, who’s a team member of the gym, Fit NHB. According to the complaint, Borg was working out at Fit NHB and had a three-year contract with Wild Bunch in which the management company would arrange fights for Borg, as well as train and promote the fighter and manage the business side of his fighting career. For his end of the deal, Borg was allegedly supposed to pay Wild Bunch 20% of everything he earned in the cage up to $10,000, plus 10% of any bonuses of $10,000 or more. The contract also allegedly included a non-compete clause in which Borg agreed not to teach martial arts within 50 miles of Fit NHB for the first year after his contract with Wild Bunch had been terminated.

Wild Bunch had allegedly negotiated Borg’s five-fight contract with UFC when Borg allegedly broke off all ties with both the gym and the management company after just the first fight and without any warning. After that point, Borg allegedly switched to Jackson Wink MMA in Albuquerque, a direct competitor of Wild Bunch that’s located across town. Continue reading ›

|

One of the biggest advantages to settling a lawsuit outside of court is that it removes the uncertainty of going to trial. The plaintiffs are sure to get some financial benefit, rather than risking it all at trial, and the defendants often pay a lower amount than they would have had to pay if they had left it up to a jury. Both parties get to avoid the time, expense, and hassle involved in pursuing a legal dispute that has the potential to drag on in the courts for months or even years. This is why most class action lawsuits settle before ever reaching court.

But if the parties reach a settlement agreement and one or more of the plaintiffs don’t agree with the terms of the agreement, they can choose to opt out of the class. Plaintiffs who decide not to opt out, and take the settlement, are usually prevented from filing similar lawsuits against the defendant in the future as part of the settlement agreement. It’s for this reason that, when someone decides to opt out of a class, it’s often because they want to reserve their right to sue the defendant. In most cases, they think they can get better terms, either by pursuing a lawsuit all the way through a trial or pushing for a more favorable settlement agreement.

This is the case with the recent class action copyright lawsuit against Spotify. The music streaming company recently reached a settlement agreement worth $112.55 million with a class of more than 535,000 plaintiffs. After the class members were notified of the settlement and its terms, about 1,200 members opted out of the class. Continue reading ›

|

The past few years of Shari Redstone’s life sound like something taken directly from a soap opera after her aging father, Sumner Redstone, fell ill and required a full-time nurse to take care of him.

You probably know Sumner Redstone as the media mogul who ran the National Amusements theater chain (which owns CBS) for more than half a century. When he got sick, Shari kicked his long-time girlfriend out of his mansion, moved in herself, and took control of her father’s media company. Sumner’s girlfriend is suing Shari for having kicked her out and allegedly turned Sumner against her.

But now Shari Redstone has a bigger problem on her hands. Leslie Moonves, the CBS chief executive, has led a sort of a coup against her with other CBS directors. Moonves and the board of directors are suing Redstone for allegedly acting in her own best interests, even when it allegedly went in direct opposition to the best interests of the company’s shareholders. As a result, they are seeking to dilute Redstone’s voting rights as the majority shareholder of CBS and to strip her of much of her control over the media company.

Since Redstone has the power to fire anyone from the board of directors, why would they do all this at the risk of their own jobs? Continue reading ›

|

The Illinois Guidelines for Statutory Maintenance are Inapplicable in Proceedings to Modify Maintenance that were Ordered before the Amendment Went into Effect.

Currently, maintenance in Illinois is governed by 750 ILCS 5/504 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Recently, Section 504 was amended, and the amendment became effective on January 1, 2018, which increased the combined gross annual income to be less than $500,000 and has a guideline for the duration and amount of maintenance. If a couple that is going through a divorce has a combined annual income in excess of $500,000, then the court can set maintenance at any amount and for any duration as it deems necessary and appropriate. Also, when the couple has a combined gross annual income that is less than $500,000, the court can deviate from the guidelines of Section 504, but the court must make a special finding and disclose its special finding.

Recently, the Illinois Appellate Court decided, if a divorce took place prior to the Section 504 amendment and then a party petitions the Court after the amendment went into effect, the new guidelines do not apply to the modification of maintenance.

This groundbreaking case involved a Petitioner who filed for a dissolution of marriage in 2005, which is well before the amendment to Section 504 went into effect. At the time of Petitioner filing for divorce, the couple was married for nineteen years and nine months (just shy of twenty years). In 2007, the district court dissolved the parties’ marriage and in the court’s Order it ordered that the former husband must pay his former wife maintenance. Also, the court’s order disallowed modification of the maintenance award until the former wife reached the age of sixty-five. Later, both parties filed petitions to modify the maintenance award. The district court found that the Section 504 amendment should be applied to the former couples’ modification of the maintenance award. It was decided by the district court that the former husband’s petition for a reduction of maintenance was denied and that the former wife’s petition for an increase of maintenance was granted due to a substantial change of circumstances of the party’s financial situation. The former wife was granted permanent maintenance by the district court (which under Section 504 would typically only be awarded to a spouse that was in a twenty or more-year marriage). Continue reading ›

|

While online tools can be a great way for consumers to gain information on products before they buy, they can be a hassle for sellers. Brick-and-mortar retailers have long complained about shoppers coming in to look over their merchandise before buying it for a lower price online. There have also been multiple scandals involving books and other goods that go on sale at one retailer, and because of Amazon’s automatic price check, they go on sale for that same price on Amazon. This can then cause a domino effect of other retailers selling the product for the lower price, which some people claim devalues the items being sold.

But what about houses?

Selling a house is problematic enough on its own, but now homeowners looking to sell have to deal with buyers who use Zillow’s online tool, Zestimate, to get an estimate of the price of their house. Zestimate takes the information on a house and uses a proprietary algorithm to calculate an estimated home price. Of course, Zestimate only has access to information on the house that’s publicly available, whereas an appraiser would have access to much more information on a property, making their appraisal different from Zillow’s online estimate.

Nevertheless, buyers come in expecting to pay the amount they saw on Zillow, even though the site warns consumers that the number is only an estimate and homes might very well sell for more or less than the amount provided by their online tool. It is not an appraisal and most of its estimates have a 4.6% error rate, meaning the price it gives could be 4.6% more or less than the actual price of the property. Zillow says the estimate is meant as a starting point, not a final number. Continue reading ›

|

In Illinois when property is at issue during a divorce the court must first decide if the property in question is marital property or non-marital property. Then, the court can make the decision of who should get what or how the property should be split-up.

The Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act defines what property is to be considered “marital property” or “non-marital property”. 750 ILCS 5/503(a). For example, any property that is acquired as a gift, legacy, or in exchange for such property is considered non-marital property and would be the spouse’s sole property. The court in a contested divorce should not consider non-marital property when making a decision of who should get what at the end of the divorce.

Recently, the Appellate Court concluded that a former spouse’s real estate, which his nonmarital business was located on, was marital property. The business itself was nonmarital property, but the land where the business was on, was considered marital property. Continue reading ›

|

Maintenance previously referred to as “Alimony” had a recent revamp in Illinois. Maintenance in Illinois is governed by 750 ILCS 5/504 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Under the previous version of Section 504 the maintenance guidelines only applied to divorces when the couple had a combined gross annual income of less than $250,000. Section 504 was recently amended, and the amendment became effective on January 1, 2018, which increased the combined gross annual income to be less than $500,000.

As most couples in Illinois have a combined gross annual income that is less than half-a-million dollars, the amendment to Section 504 affects the vast majority of couples that are filing for divorce here in Illinois. If a couple that is going through a divorce has a combined annual income in excess of $500,000, then the court can set maintenance at any amount and for any duration as it deems necessary and appropriate. When the couple has a combined gross annual income that is less than $500,000, the court can also deviate from the guidelines of Section 504, but the court must make special findings and disclose the special findings. Continue reading ›

|

Although no one legally needs a reason to fire a consultant, it’s another matter entirely to allegedly defame that consultant to other potential clients. According to a recent defamation lawsuit, that’s allegedly what happened after Tim Semmerling was fired from the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Military Commissions.

Semmerling, who lives in Illinois, opened his own mitigation services practice in 2010, called The Mercury Endeavor LLC, which specializes in working with Arabs, Muslims, and the military.

Semmerling said he was contacted in June of 2011 by Cheryl Bormann, another Illinois resident who is a qualified lead counsel attorney for death penalty litigation. At the time, Bormann was working as a defense attorney for a member of al-Qaeda who was being held at Guantanamo Bay while facing charges pertaining to the terrorist attack that happened on September 11, 2001.

According to the complaint, Bormann allegedly offered to hire Semmerling as the client’s mitigation specialist and instructed him to not accept any offers from other defense teams.

Semmerling said he started working for the client in October of 2011 when he traveled to Washington to meet with Bormann and the rest of the capital defense team. In July 2012, he made another trip to Washington for an interview with agents of the CIA so he could get the security clearance required to serve his new client. According to the complaint, Bormann and Michael Schwartz, a U.S. Air Force officer who was acting as an attorney on assignment at the Military Commissions Defense Organization, allegedly told Semmerling to be open and honest with the CIA operatives, and so when they asked questions about his personal life, Semmerling allegedly did not hold back from talking about his long-term, romantic relationship with another man. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design