|
 maintains its offices in Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon, and specializes in
representing public safety labor organizations, including public safety Associations, Guilds and
Unions.
The firm got its start in 1981, when Will Aitchison, who had been representing private-sector labor
unions, founded a firm devoted to representing public safety organization. Over the years, the firm grew
to eventually represent more than 100 law enforcement and fire protection labor organizations in five Western
states. As the firm expanded, Chris Vick joined Will as a partner in the firm. In 1993, Will withdrew to "of-counsel"
status with the firm, but within a few years Will and Chris had re-formed their partnership under the name
of Aitchison & Vick.
Aitchison & Vick, Inc. has deliberately limited its practice to focus on providing
high quality legal services to a select clientele in Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Hawaii.
Will's and Chris' commitment to quality extends to every service the
firm provides to its clients. All of the partners in the firm have over twenty
years of public safety labor law experience, and hold strong beliefs in the necessity of prompt, informed,
and capable service to clients. The firm consciously maintains
a high attorney to client ratio to assure the best quality of client representation.
The result of this policy is that, while competing firms typically have fifteen unions assigned
to each attorney, Aitchison & Vick, Inc. maintains a ratio of five union clients to each attorney.
This translates into service and flexibility in serving our clients' needs.
Aitchison & Vick pioneered the notion of the "full-service" law firm representing public safety
labor organizations. The firm handles litigation on behalf of clients, represents clients in arbitrations
and unfair labor practice proceedings, provides around-the-clock immediate response to critical
incidents, acts as the chief spokesperson in the collective bargaining process, furnishes a wealth of
support information for the bargaining process such as data on comparable jurisdictions, the
cost of living, and staffing, and gives day-to-day advice to its clients on the myriad
of issues facing modern public safety labor organizations.
has developed a nationwide litigation practice specializing in representing employees in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law wage and hour cases. Listed below are some of the firm's recent and active cases:
Bamonte v. City of Mesa: The parties filed motions for summary judgment with the District Court of Arizona. The judge decided in April, 2008 that officers could not be paid for putting on and taking off their uniforms and gear because they have the "option and ability" to do these activities at home. We appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. In a 2-1 decision with a vigorous dissenting opinion issued on March 25, 2010, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district judge, finding that the donning and doffing was not compensable because it was not required to be done at the worksite. Please click here to read the Ninth Circuit's decision. We are filing a petition for rehearing, and we also plan to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. At this point, our petitions are discretionary, and the courts may decide not to hear them. (Updated as of 4/5/10)
Dager v. City of Phoenix: The parties filed motions for summary judgment with the District Court of Arizona. The judge decided in January, 2009 that officers could not be paid for putting on and taking off their uniforms and gear because they have the "option and ability" to do these activities at home. We appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has now issued a decision in Bamonte v. City of Mesa, deciding the same issue. (Please see Bamonte v. City of Mesa above). The City of Phoenix has argued that the Ninth Circuit should reach the same result in our appeal of Dager v. City of Phoenix. (Updated as of 4/5/10)
Espinoza v. County of Fresno: The County filed a summary judgment motion in May 2009, requesting that the judge decide how the law applies to the case. Plaintiffs responded to the motion. However, the judge has not made a decision. Instead, the judge "stayed" the case (or put it on hold) until the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Bamonte v. City of Mesa on the donning and doffing issue. The Ninth Circuit has now made a decision. (Please see Bamonte v. City of Mesa above). We expect that the judge will put the case back on his calendar relatively soon. (Updated as of 4/5/10)
Lemmon v. City of San Leandro: The parties filed summary judgment motions in September 2007. The judge decided that the officers should be paid for the time they spend putting on and taking off their uniforms and gear because it is necessary to police work and it benefits the City. The parties settled the case. There have been a number of other district courts in the Ninth Circuit that have decided this question, some in favor of the officers and some not. This issue was just decided by the Ninth Circuit in Bamonte v. City of Mesa. (Please see Bamonte v. City of Mesa above). (Updated as of 4/5/10)
Rogers v. City and County of Denver: Between June and December of 2009, the parties filed a series of motions asking the judge to decide many of the issues in the case. We just heard from the judge that he is scheduling oral argument on the motions, which will occur on April 19, 2010. It could then take some time for the judge to issue his decisions. We expect that many issues will require a trial to resolve them because there are facts in dispute. The judge has not yet scheduled a trial date, and we understand that his calendar is already full for 2010. (Updated as of 4/5/10)
Valladon v. City of Oakland: The City filed 10 summary judgment motions and lost all but one of them in July-October 2009. Plaintiffs won their summary judgment motion on the "regular rate" claim-the Court found that the City had miscalculated the overtime rate. The parties negotiated a settlement that provides Plaintiffs with almost $3 million worth of vacation leave. The Court approved the settlement on February 2, 2010.
For information on other current cases, please go to one of the following pages:
New York City
City and County of Honolulu
|
