Employees and consumers should have access to top-flight counsel on appeal. Big corporations employ a deep and talented bench of appellate specialists. Apollo Law levels the playing field.

Our Mission

Through our work, we aim to vindicate the rights of our clients and deter misconduct by those in positions of power, while improving the legal landscape for workers, consumers, and individuals.

Our Work

Appellate proceedings play an increasingly important role in resolving disputes. A generation ago, plaintiffs could expect to take their claims to trial—with the results reviewed for substantial evidence and clear error. Times have changed. Vigorous review at the motion-to-dismiss, class-certification, summary-judgment, and post-trial phases of litigation gives appellate courts an expanded role in resolving disputes. More so than ever before, appeals matter. Apollo Law approaches appeals the same way trial lawyers approach trial: evaluating each case holistically, giving every case the time and energy it deserves, and developing frames and themes designed to persuade the target audience: appellate judges.

case highlights

Here’s some of our work we like:

Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that mortgage loan officers were eligible to receive overtime compensation. The case resolved a seminal issue of administrative law, establishing that federal agencies may revise their interpretative rules without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking. (Opinion / Brief / Reply / Petition for Certiorari)

Monroe v. FTS: The Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a class of cable installers, re-affirming the use of representative proof in establishing class-wide liability and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Counsel persuaded the Supreme Court to deny the employer's petitions for certiorari. (Opinion / Merits Brief / Opposition to Certiorari)

Epic Systems v. Lewis: Represented a proposed class of employees before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case presenting the question of whether the National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from forcing employees to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration. (Briefing)

Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad: After Allan Sanders recovered from a bleeding ulcer, his doctors cleared him to return to work with no restrictions. His employer, relying on its in-house doctor, refused to let Sanders come back to work and failed to consider possible accommodations. The issue is this Eighth Circuit appeal is whether an employer can categorically immunize itself from liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act by claiming it relied on the advice of the employer’s in-house doctor. (Spoiler: it can’t.) Decision forthcoming. (Brief)

Thomas v. Maximus: Employees suing to recover lost wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act have the right to send notice to similarly situated employees who’ve been harmed by the same illegal conduct. But employers have long tried to obstruct the notice process, hoping that justice delayed will be justice denied. Here, after a district court authorized notice to employees affected by the employer’s illegal conduct, the employer asked the Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court to impose punishing new limitations on courts’ authority to send such notice. The response from the Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court? Yeah we’re not doing that. (Opposition to Petition for Interlocutory Appeal / Opposition to Application for Emergency Stay from the Supreme Court)

Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division: In the first circuit-level decision of its kind, the Sixth Circuit held that working from home can be (and in this case, was) a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Opinion / Brief)

Gunter v. Bemis: Successfully defended a jury verdict under the Americans with Disabilities Act where the employer argued on appeal that a factory worker who suffered an injury on the job was no longer qualified to perform his duties. (Opinion / Brief)

Taylor v. Pilot: In a rare win against forced arbitration, the appellate court held that district courts may not delegate to an arbitrator the question of whether an agreement to arbitrate exists in the first place. The court also held that district courts may oversee discovery related to the question of contract formation and that orders governing such discovery are not appealable. (Opinion / Brief)

Mlsna v. Union Pacific Railroad: In a win for hearing-impaired employees, the Seventh Circuit agreed that a railroad discriminated against hearing-impaired workers when it adopted a hearing exam protocol that heavily disfavored workers who wear hearing aids. On remand after the successful appeal, a jury awarded the plaintiff—a hearing-impaired train conductor who was sidelined because of his disability—more than $43 million. (Opinion / Brief / Reply)

Dansie v. Union Pacific Railroad: In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the Americans with Disabilities Act required an employer to give an employee with cancer limited time every month to attend his doctor’s appointments. The Court emphasized that employers must engage with disabled employees in an interactive active process to best accommodate their medical needs. (Opinion / Brief / Reply)

Houston v. St. Luke’s Health System: Employers have long used time-clock rounding to shortchange employees. This appeal challenged a large employer’s practice of rounding time at the beginning and end of each shift. Although this practice costs employees only a few minutes each shift, that time adds up. In this case, the employer’s rounding policy cumulatively rounded away tens of thousands of hours worked and cost employees millions of dollars in lost wages. In a pathbreaking decision, the Eighth Circuit held that the employer’s rounding practice had the effect of systematically shortchanging employees and therefore violated the law. (Opinion / Brief / Reply)

Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions: In the first appellate decision of its kind, the Tenth Circuit held that time spent by a class of call center employees booting up their computers and loading specialized software applications is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court’s opinion has far-reaching implications for defining compensable work for low-wage office employees in the digital economy. (Opinion / Brief / Reply)

Canaday v. The Anthem Companies: For more than 80 years, workers have relied on the Fair Labor Standards Act’s collective action mechanism to band together in order to challenge unlawful employment practices. Nationwide collective actions, employers now claim, violate employers’ constitutional rights. We strongly disagree. This appeal—the first to reach the U.S. Court of Appeals on the issue—asks whether principles of personal jurisdiction prohibit a federal court from maintaining an FLSA collective action that includes opt-in plaintiff employees who worked for the employer outside the state where the federal court is located. The Sixth Circuit recently sided with employers, over a pointed dissent. We continue to litigate this issue in a number of appellate courts. (Opinion and dissent / Brief / Reply)

Ruffing v. Wipro Limited: Pennsylvania, among other states, requires businesses who conduct certain local business activities in the state to register with the state. That registration, in turn, requires businesses to consent to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania courts. This appeal to the Third Circuit addresses whether Pennsylvania’s business-registration statute violates due process (hint: it doesn’t). (Brief)

Goza v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division: This cutting-edge appeal addressed whether the First Amendment protects the rights of public employees to engage in off-duty political discussion on social media. The case settled before a decision was handed down. (Brief)

Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez: The Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot the plaintiff's claim. Apollo attorney authored an amicus brief on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association and the National Employment Law Project urging the Court to rule in the plaintiff's favor. (Opinion / Brief)

American Home Shield v. Ozur: This Sixth Circuit appeal presented the question of whether employers may enforce non-compete agreements—which are illegal in California—against California-based employees by using contractual choice-of-law provisions to evade California law. The case settled before a decision was reached. (Brief)

McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank: The Ninth Circuit held that mortgage underwriters must be paid overtime, reversing the district court and directing judgment for a class of employees. (Opinion / Brief / Reply)

Clark v. Centene Company of Texas: The Fifth Circuit affirmed a summary-judgment ruling and bench-trial decision awarding uncompensated earnings to a certified class of medical case managers. (Opinion / Brief)

Robinson v. Nexion Health at Terrell: This appeal to the Fifth Circuit addressed the quantum of proof required to state a claim for unpaid overtime and challenged the district court's overly broad and improper application of the so-called "sham affidavit" doctrine. The Fifth Circuit summarily reversed the district court's judgment. (Brief / Oral Argument)

United Student Aid Funds v. Bible: Successfully opposed a high-profile petition for certiorari urging the Supreme Court to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). The petition garnered six cert-stage amicus briefs urging review, including one brief submitted on behalf of sixteen states. The Court denied review over the lone dissent of Justice Thomas. (Order / Brief)

Boaz v. FedEx: On an issue of first impression for any appellate court, successfully urged the Sixth Circuit to hold that the statute of limitations governing claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Equal Pay Act cannot be shortened by contract. Counsel provided strategic advice on the brief and argued the case before the court. Counsel sought and received an amicus brief authored by the U.S. Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission urging the court to reverse the district court's contrary ruling. (Opinion)

Jackson v. Gutzmer: Pro bono case before the Eighth Circuit representing a prisoner who was improperly punished for seeking medical treatment. On appeal, argued that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and argued alternatively that shackling a prisoner to a restraint board as punishment for seeking medical treatment violates the Eighth Amendment.  (Brief)

What people are saying