loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

David J. Pryzbylski
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-6464

F 317-231-7433

OVERVIEW

David J. Pryzbylski
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-6464

F 317-231-7433

Traditional labor law counselor and employment adviser David Pryzbylski is diligently focused on achieving the right result for each client he serves. He is dedicated to providing legal solutions to the challenges his clients face by incorporating not only legal and business strategy into problem-solving, but also compassion in consideration of the human element of managing a workforce.

OVERVIEW

David J. Pryzbylski Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P : 317-231-6464

Traditional labor law counselor and employment adviser David Pryzbylski is diligently focused on achieving the right result for each client he serves. He is dedicated to providing legal solutions to the challenges his clients face by incorporating not only legal and business strategy into problem-solving, but also compassion in consideration of the human element of managing a workforce.

David concentrates a large portion of his practice on assisting employers with traditional labor matters. His deep experience includes collective bargaining, work stoppages, arbitrations, union avoidance training and strategies, union representation elections, unfair labor practice charges, contract administration, and various other labor relations issues.

David has helped companies secure favorable outcomes with labor issues around the country. He has experience with numerous labor unions, including the Steelworkers, Teamsters, Laborers, Sheet Metal Workers, CWA, UFCW, UAW, IBEW, BTCGM, GMP and with trades such as carpenters, pipefitters and more. Notably, David’s interest in labor relations began in high school, having grown up next to several of the largest steel mills in the world and coming from a family that has members in human resources management and union leadership positions. These experiences have given him a foundational understanding as to how unions operate and what drives their decision-making process.

To maintain a well-rounded practice and offer a full range of labor and employment services to his clients, David also routinely defends employers in employment litigation matters – both in class/collective actions and individual cases – alleging wrongful discharge; discrimination; retaliation; harassment; wage-related claims; breach of contract; and claims regarding the classification of workers as independent contractors under various state and federal laws. In addition, David has defended clients in class actions and high stakes qui tam actions, which are often initiated by current or former disgruntled employees and brought under the False Claims Act by government agencies and the Department of Justice.

David also assists employers with proactive counseling, both in the employment and labor context. This portion of his practice involves reviewing and drafting employment policies; conducting training on issues spanning the labor and employment spectrum; and otherwise advising clients when daily, complex employee-relations issues arise.

Honors

The Best Lawyers in America, 2018-2019

Indiana Super Lawyers, Rising Star, 2012-2019

Law360 Rising Star, 2017

Chambers USA, Up and Coming Lawyer, 2015-2018

Leadership In Law: Up and Coming Lawyer, The Indiana Lawyer, 2015

Experience

Traditional Labor

  • Assisted a global manufacturing company successfully implement and manage a six-month lockout of more than 200 employees during collective bargaining negotiations in Pennsylvania that resulted in the union accepting company proposals that significantly addressed business needs, including the elimination of retiree health benefits.
  • Was counsel of record for a national grocery chain in an injunction action filed in Indiana federal court by a union seeking to force the company to rescind changes to its healthcare plan.
  • Successfully defended a national manufacturer in a NLRB action in Maryland where the union sought to prevent the closure of a site that was not performing up to company expectations.
  • Negotiated a plant shutdown agreement that included vacating a long-standing collective bargaining agreement at a steel mill on behalf of a private investment group based in Miami.
  • Assisted numerous companies around the U.S., ranging in size from dozens to thousands of employees, remain union-free in the face of union organizing efforts. His successes on the union avoidance front have occurred in New York, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Mississippi, Michigan, West Virginia and Indiana.

Litigation

  • Served as lead defense counsel in a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act in New Hampshire seeking more than $3.5 million in damages.
  • Secured a favorable summary judgment ruling for Roche Diagnostics Corporation in the Eastern District of New York on an age discrimination claim and then successfully argued for thousands of dollars in costs being awarded to the company, including e-discovery costs.
  • Successfully secured dismissal of a race discrimination and retaliation complaint filed against Rolls-Royce Corporation in Indiana federal court based on a plaintiff’s failure to disclose the lawsuit in his contemporaneous bankruptcy proceedings. The case was dismissed before discovery, saving the company significant litigation costs.
  • Obtained summary judgment for a national warranty company in a wage-payment suit where an employee alleged he was entitled to over $100,000 more than what he was actually paid under the terms of a revised bonus plan. The court’s ruling precluded the formation of a class action by other employees affected by the revised bonus plan terms.
  • Successfully appealed a California Employment Development Department determination that a national manufacturer had misclassified nearly 100 workers as independent contractors, which resulted in a nearly $1 million tax assessment being vacated.
EXPERIENCE
  • Confronted with an 86-paragraph complaint extensively detailing facts allegedly supporting former Roche Diagnostics Corporation Account Manager Martin Grant’s claims of age discrimination (including an assertion his direct supervisor told him he should leave Roche because “sales is a young man’s game”), Ken Yerkes and David Pryzbylski successfully assisted firm client Roche obtain Summary Judgment on all of Grant’s claims in the Eastern District of New York.

    From the outset, litigation was contentious, as Grant immediately began raising electronic discovery issues. Discovery ultimately lasted more than a year, during which time tens of thousands of documents were produced, depositions were conducted around New York state and Pennsylvania – including an expert regarding Grant’s alleged damages – and Ken and David tracked down a key witness to obtain an affidavit supporting Roche’s defenses.

    In awarding summary judgment for Roche, the Court heavily relied on Ken and David’s Reply Brief that dismantled each of Grant’s arguments and also looked to the affidavit testimony of the former Roche employee that was secured by Ken and David. The Court capped its colorful opinion by holding “the record is devoid of any evidence that age was a motivating factor in--let alone the ‘but-for’ cause of--Roche’s decision to terminate Mr. Grant’s employment.” In addition to a favorable ruling on the merits, the Court awarded Roche over $6,000.00 in costs it incurred while defending the lawsuit, including electronic discovery costs.
  • Facing the prospect of paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars more in bonuses to certain sales employees than it initially contemplated, a firm client changed its objectives under a bonus program it maintained for sales employees mid-year due to unforeseen circumstances that resulted in major increased sales totals for several of its employees (i.e., raised the goals, which in turn lowered the employees’ opportunity for bonus compensation). One of the employees brought suit when he received a reduced bonus under the “new” system, alleging that he was entitled to the considerably larger bonus he would have received under the objectives originally communicated to him by the company. Partner Nathan Baker and Associate David Pryzbylski argued on behalf of their client that because the employee was at-will, the company was privileged to make changes to any of the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment, including his compensation under the bonus program. The court adopted the rationale set forth by Nathan and David and awarded the client summary judgment against the employee on all of his claims in February 2011.
  • In a suit where a former employee alleged her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) were violated when she was terminated for violating client Disetronic’s “no show/no call” policy while having FMLA request paperwork pending, Barnes & Thornburg LLP assisted client Disetronic on their motion for summary judgment in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Indiana. In addition to granting a favorable ruling on the merits that upheld employers’ rights to enforce their reasonable attendance policies even while FMLA paperwork is pending, the Court also struck an affidavit submitted by the Plaintiff in support of her opposition to summary judgment that conflicted with her deposition testimony.
  • Tony Prather and David Pryzbylski of Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Indianapolis office were successful in getting a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed against firm client Rolls-Royce Corporation dismissed before the case entered discovery. Upon receiving a copy of the complaint filed by current Rolls-Royce employee Clayton Cowling in the Southern District of Indiana, Tony and David ran a docket search on Mr. Cowling's involvement in other lawsuits. When Tony and David learned that Mr. Cowling had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2008 and that the bankruptcy case remained open, they carefully reviewed Mr. Cowling's bankruptcy filings to evaluate whether Mr. Cowling had fulfilled his duty to disclose his claims against Rolls-Royce in his bankruptcy case. Having found that Mr. Cowling failed to disclose his lawsuit against Rolls-Royce to the bankruptcy court, Tony and David filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court on grounds Mr. Cowling lacked standing to bring the suit due to his failure to disclose the claims in his bankruptcy. Relying on the legal authority and arguments set forth by Tony and David, the Court dismissed Mr. Cowling's claims in full. Because Tony and David spotted this procedural defect early on and filed the motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, the case never entered discovery and they were thus successful in avoiding unnecessary legal fees and costs related to defending the underlying merits of Mr. Cowling's claims.
INSIGHTS & EVENTS
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.