Our Work

Apollo Law began with a simple premise: that employees and consumers should have access to top-flight appellate counsel. Large corporations employ a deep and talented bench of appellate specialists. Apollo Law brings the same singular focus, experience, and knowledge to bear on behalf of employees, consumers, and other aggrieved individuals. Through our work, we aim to vindicate the rights of our clients while improving the legal landscape for workers and individuals everywhere.

Appellate proceedings play an ever-greater 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. 

Co-counsel With Apollo

At Apollo Law, we principally co-counsel with trial lawyers looking for a teammate on appeal. We work hand-in-hand on the case with our co-counsel. With our birds-eye view of your case's facts, law, and the court's developing jurisprudence, we break the case down to its elements and build it back up again. Together, we present the court with the simplest, strongest, most forceful arguments in your client's favor. In appropriate cases, we solicit amicus briefs from government agencies, legal scholars, and public advocacy organizations. 

Just like our co-counsel, Apollo Law employs a variety of billing arrangements. We work on contingency, hourly, for a flat fee—or often, using hybrid arrangements. We evaluate each case carefully, and tailor the billing arrangement to the unique facts of each appeal.     

Greatest Hits

Here's some of our work we like:

Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that mortgage loan officers are 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. Counsel persuaded the Supreme Court to deny the employer's petition 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)

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 not longer qualified to continue working. (Opinion / Brief)

Isett v. Aetna: Appeal to the Second Circuit arguing that insurance company workers who review claims for medical benefits were misclassified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s professional and administrative exemptions. Decision forthcoming. (Brief)

Bose v. Rhodes College: This appeal to the Sixth Circuit addresses whether a plaintiff who suffered sex discrimination and retaliation can rely on the “cat’s paw” theory of causation to establish liability under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Decision forthcoming. (Brief / Reply)

Calderon v. GEICO: The Fourth Circuit concluded that insurance investigators do not qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act's administrative exemption. (Opinion / 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: Representing an employee before the Sixth Circuit on a case presenting the question of whether employers may enforce non-compete agreements against California-based employees by using contractual choice-of-law provisions to evade California's ban on such agreements. (Brief)

McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank: Argument to the Ninth Circuit addressing whether mortgage underwriters are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirement. The Ninth Circuit held that such employees must be paid overtime, reversing the district court and directing judgment for the 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: Argument to the Fifth Circuit addressing the quantum of proof required to state a claim for unpaid overtime and challenging 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 and remanded the case for trial. (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)

Landers v. Quality Communications: Authored a petition for certiorari urging the Supreme Court to clarify the proper scope of the Court's pleadings decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The petition attracted a cert-stage amicus brief from a group of civil procedure scholars led by Professor Alexander Reinert. SCOTUSblog highlighted the petition as a "Petition of the Day" and one of a small group of "Petitions to Watch." Unfortunately, the Court denied the petition, but the issue may soon be ripe for review as the Court's composition changes. (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)

Kennett v. Bayada Home Health Care: On a matter of first impression, successfully convinced the Colorado District Court that home health care workers employed by third-party agencies must receive overtime compensation under Colorado state law. Following the district court's certification of the question presented to the Colorado Supreme Court, counsel persuaded the Colorado Supreme Court to decline review—effectively letting the pro-employee decision stand.  (Opinion / Brief)

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 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 Say

Some kind words about Apollo Law from our co-counsel:

"My firm has partnered with Adam Hansen at Apollo Law on multiple appellate cases. Starting work on the appeals together, I assumed I would have a better handle on the facts and the law, but I was blown away with Adam’s mastery not only of the law and facts, but of the larger policy arguments that I had not even considered. I consider brief writing to be one of my strong points, but as I told Adam once the briefs were filed, I effectively gave him a dull butter knife, and he sharpened it into Excalibur." - Douglas Welmaker, Dunham & Jones, Austin, Texas

"Adam Hansen at Apollo Law has done an outstanding job vigorously and forcefully pursuing appeals on my cases. His ability to identify and persuasively present legal arguments, and uncover compelling support for those arguments, has to rank among 'the best in the business.' As a wage and hour and class action litigator handling a multitude of 'law focused' cases for over 23 years, and as an experienced brief writer and appellate advocate who has read and written countless briefs, and participated in far too many oral arguments to remember, I can state, without hesitation, that there is no one better than Adam for you to entrust with your appeals."      - Leon Greenberg, Overtime and Wage Collection Center, Las Vegas, Nevada

"Need appellate help to preserve a win? Need to leave no stone unturned in your effort to reverse an unjust decision below? Call Adam Hansen at Apollo Law. You can handle the appeal yourself but why do that when your appellate team is a call away?" - William Ryan, Donati Law, Memphis, Tennessee