loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

Nathan A. Baker
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7806

F 317-231-7433

OVERVIEW

Nathan A. Baker
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7806

F 317-231-7433

Nathan Baker represents employers in virtually every aspect of employment law, with a focus on employment litigation, day-to-day counseling and traditional labor issues. Regardless of the matter at hand, Nathan seeks to protect his client’s primary concerns and bottom line by providing solutions that streamline utilitarian approaches to problem solving.

OVERVIEW

Nathan A. Baker Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P : 317-231-7806

Nathan Baker represents employers in virtually every aspect of employment law, with a focus on employment litigation, day-to-day counseling and traditional labor issues. Regardless of the matter at hand, Nathan seeks to protect his client’s primary concerns and bottom line by providing solutions that streamline utilitarian approaches to problem solving.

Nathan has litigated cases in multiple jurisdictions covering the gamut of federal and state employment issues, including wage and hour investigations and audits, matters before the EEOC and state civil rights agencies, court actions alleging discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination, as well as matters involving the ADA, ADEA, FMLA and ERISA. Given the ever-changing landscape of employment law, Nathan emphasizes proactive, prevention-driven counseling designed to mitigate and avoid potential problems before they arise. He is sensitive to his client’s specific needs when helping them navigate the often murky waters of managing a workforce.

Nathan works together with his clients to chart effective and efficient strategies unique to their situations in all types of labor relations challenges. His experience includes representing management in union-free training, arbitration hearings, unfair labor practice charges before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and navigating clients through strikes and lockouts. Nathan also represents employers in collective bargaining negotiations and in resisting union organizing attempts.

Moreover, Nathan has also trained many employers with regard to their practices, policies and general handling of workforce relations. He has drafted and edited employee handbooks and employment agreements, and is a regular speaker at events and seminars hosted by clients, human resource, business and other professional groups and associations.

Nathan takes significant pride in his role as counselor. His dedication is manifest in a personal commitment to being responsive and ensuring his client’s goals drive the legal agenda as opposed to vice versa. Nathan works closely with clients to ensure they have the necessary tools to address the legal challenges they face from an operational standpoint and business perspective.

Nathan was born and raised in the Midwest; however, his practice allows him the opportunity to serve clients from coast to coast and many points in between. He has represented employers from a wide variety of industries and professional sectors such as manufacturing, automotive, financial and banking, retail, utilities and medical, as well as foreign clients with U.S. facilities. He also works with public employers and has assisted towns, cities and counties with their labor and employment matters.

Honors

Indiana Super Lawyers Rising Star, twice

The Best Lawyers in America, 2018

Martindale-Hubbell, AV Preeminent

EXPERIENCE
  • A team of firm attorneys, led by Martin Zivitz, assisted in the $15.5 million sale of a 225-bed skilled nursing facility, which closed Dec. 31, 2013. The consummation of the transactions resulted from a coordinated effort among firm attorneys who handled all of the health care and related regulatory issues, oversaw all real estate aspects of the transactions, navigated union, labor and related employment matters and helped expedite the closing.
  • Assisted client with case in which court found no direct evidence of racial discrimination nor evidence of similarly situated non-black employees who were treated better dooms Plaintiff's racial discrimination termination claim.
  • Client-employer obtained summary judgment on a former employee's ADEA damages claim because the employee did not discharge her duty to mitigate damages; a full-time bartending job was not comparable to the former managerial job in terms of duties and earnings.

    Hazelene Hutton was employed by Sally Beauty Company, Inc. (Sally Beauty) until her termination in 2001. Hutton was 58 years old. Hutton subsequently brought a lawsuit against Sally Beauty arguing that she was terminated based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Sally Beauty moved for summary judgment based on damages, arguing that even if Hutton were able to prove age discrimination, she would not be entitled to damages due to her alleged failure to mitigate these damages.

    In support of its motion for summary judgment, Sally Beauty submitted a collection of classified ads from local newspapers demonstrating that comparable retail management job openings were available in the geographic region where Hutton lived. For example, there were openings for video store managers, store team leaders, an office manager for a winery, managers for a Hallmark store, merchandising managers and store managers for a clothing store.

    The Court observed that Hutton had not made any attempts to secure comparable employment. Additionally, Hutton introduced no evidence in support of a good faith effort to secure comparable employment. The Court observed that Hutton’s full-time bartending job was not comparable in terms of duties and responsibilities or in terms of earnings. Accordingly, the district court granted Sally Beauty’s motion for summary judgment.
  • 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.
  • Represented Indiana-based specialty publisher in sale of business to strategic silicon valley purchaser. Required negotiation of acquisition documentation as well as extensive employment and non-competition documentation.
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.