Mr. Melzer is Co-Chair of the Firm’s Wage and Hour Practice Group and has helped return millions of dollars of lost wages to employees in presuit negotiations, active litigation, and trials.
Our commitment to securing justice and providing the best representation possible is reflected in a commitment to diversity within our own firm. At Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, we know better than to think the best attorneys look alike, sound alike, think alike, or live alike. What matters is talent, and we hire the best talent available.
As a result, our team more accurately mirrors America. Women, minority, and/or openly gay lawyers make up the majority of our staff. A passion for social justice unites our team - we all work to use the power of law to help create and enforce a more just society.
Andrew Melzer is a Partner in the New York office of Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, a national law firm with offices in the District of Columbia, New York, California, Tennessee, and Maryland, and a Co-Chair of the firm’s Wage and Hour Practice. He received his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.A. from Yale University.
Andrew manages all aspects of complex litigation from the initial investigation to pleadings, discovery, class certification, dispositive motions, trial practice, and settlement. He represents individuals in class and collective actions involving wage and hour, discrimination, and consumer protection claims. He also represents individuals in employment, qui tam, and other civil rights matters.
His recent matters include Smith et al. v. Merck, a nationwide gender discrimination class action on behalf of pharmaceutical sales representatives; Ravina v. Columbia Univ., a gender discrimination and retaliation case which resulted in a $1.25 million jury verdict; and In re Gateway Plaza Residents Litigation, an action by tenants of an NYC housing complex alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability and other claims.
Andrew was trial counsel in a civil rights and wrongful death suit against Sonoma County and numerous other defendants in George v. Sonoma County, et al. who refused to treat plaintiffs’ son’s sickle-cell anemia crisis, which eventually led to his death. The case — which went to a jury trial against certain defendants – resulted in monetary settlements of more than $2 million, as well as an independent third-party study of and changes in the medical and correctional practices of the jail. He also served as trial counsel in Perkins, et al. v. Southern New England Telephone Co., a wage and hour class action that settled post-trial, and played key roles in two related cases which settled for a combined $27 million, making this among the largest recent wage and hour settlements.
Andrew has drafted briefs and petitions to US Courts of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court, and the California Supreme Court. Prior to joining the firm, he was a staff attorney at an international organization in Zurich, that restored lost and stolen assets to Holocaust victims and their heirs. From 2003 to 2005, he was a judicial law clerk on the Massachusetts Appeals Court for Chief Justice Christopher Armstrong and legendary jurist Benjamin Kaplan. In 2002, Andrew was a McCleary Law Fellow at the Human Rights Campaign where he contributed to an amicus brief submitted by civil rights organizations in Lawrence v. Texas.
- J.D., New York University School of Law, 2003
- B.A., Yale University, 1999
- Chief Justice Christopher Armstrong, Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Justice Benjamin Kaplan, Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Civil Rights Clinic
- New York 2004
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- United States Supreme Court
The German automakers’ “Pact for the Future” labor campaign eliminates 7,000 jobs in the Americas primarily held by workers born between 1995 and 1960.
The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime wages for Claim Specialists who worked on long term disability insurance claims (“LTD Claim Specialists”) for MetLife and two of its subsidiaries, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife Insurance Company USA.
Sanford Heisler Sharp has filed claims that through the use of a long and confusing set of Terms and Conditions issued to each sales representative with his or her compensation plan, Oracle unlawfully and retroactively reduced the commissions of sales representatives based on grounds, criteria, and methods not defined in a signed commission contract. The case is currently in discovery and continuing investigation.
The class action suit is brought by Maureen Koetz, a resident of the neighborhood’s Gateway Plaza, a development with more than 1,700 rental units in the heart of lower Manhattan. Ms. Koetz, a former vice-president of the Gateway Tenants’ Association, describes how temperatures inside the complex regularly dropped to below 55 degrees this winter as well as past winters.
Sanford Heisler Sharp filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court in New Jersey against Energy Plus Holdings LLC and Energy Plus Natural Gas LP (Energy Plus) for perpetrating an illegal bait-and-switch scheme that has deceived and defrauded thousands of New Jersey consumers of millions of dollars.
Norton Rose Fulbright/Chadbourne & Parke LLP Gender Discrimination Class Action – $3.1 Million Settlement
According to Plaintiff Kerrie Campbell, a nationally recognized trial lawyer and partner in Chadbourne’s Washington, DC office, female partners at the firm are excluded from positions of decision-making authority and receive less pay and bonuses even when they out-perform their male counterparts. There is only a one-tier partnership, with every partner characterized as an equity partner.
In 2012, Sanford Heisler Sharp reached a $99 million settlement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (”Novartis”) to resolve a nationwide class and collective action brought on behalf of thousands of Novartis sales representatives. The settlement ranks among the largest wage and hour settlements.
Sanford Heisler Sharp represented thousands of AT&T employees in three class and collective action cases involving the telephone giant’s failure to pay overtime to its “First-Level Managers.” The cases settled for a combined $28 million, among the largest recent wage and hour settlements.
The Complaint, brought under the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA), alleges that ABOR dramatically underpaid Dr. MacCorquodale during her tenure as Honors College Dean relative to male deans at the university and to her male successors at the Honors College. Dean MacCorquodale had been employed by UA since 1978.
The employees allege that Ma Labs engaged in pervasive time-shaving, whereby it wrote off and refused to pay employees’ pre-shift and post-shift overtime. The company also allegedly failed to provide its employees off-duty, uninterrupted rest and meal periods, as required by California law. The workers are mostly Chinese and Latino immigrants. The court granted class certification in October 2014.
- Another Open Letter: Lawyer Suing Goldman Sachs Calls For End to Arbitration Requirements
- The Many Ways Private Employee Speech Is Protected
- Whether Employees Can Be Fired for Participating in Peaceful Protests
- Caste Prejudice: A New Kind Of Employment Discrimination Emerges As South Asians Conquer Silicon Valley
- Employers Should Owe a Duty of Loyalty to Their Workers
- Employers Grapple With New Questions As Protests Continue
- Fluctuating Overtime Rule Shields Employers From Litigation
- War of Words Follows Class Action Retreat in MoFo ‘Mommy Track’ Suit
- Sanford Heisler Sharp
- 4 Takeaways As DOL Finalizes Overtime Rule
- 2020 Benchmark Litigation Labor & Employment Star - Northeast in the practice area of Labor & Employment
- 2020 Lawdragon 500 Plaintiff Employment Lawyer
- 2019 Benchmark Litigation Labor & Employment Star - Northeast in the practice area of Labor & Employment
- 2018 Benchmark Litigation Labor & Employment Star - Northeast in the practice area of Labor & Employment
- 2013-2014, 2019-2020 New York Metro Super Lawyer
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia has rightly been heralded as a true milestone for LGBTQ rights, including by my colleague Alok Nadig, who describes the decision here. Bostock brings LGBT Americans into the fold of Title VII’s protections against discrimination “because of sex” and has important ramifications with regard to other federal laws adopting similarly-worded […]
In this cultural moment, the conversation surrounding reparations for American’s cardinal sin of slavery, segregation, and racial oppression will likely gain momentum. It is about time for this issue to become of part of mainstream social and political discourse and for significant progress to be made. The case for reparations has been laid out here, […]
At Sanford Heisler Sharp, we are committed to the bedrock principle of equal justice under law. We support and stand behind peaceful protests to bring about long-needed societal reform, take on systemic racism, and make our world a better place for everyone. In the familiar words of Dr. King, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to […]
In cases against private employers under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act (ADEA), employees must establish traditional “but for” causation. See Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (2009). This basically means that the termination or other adverse action at issue would not have happened without the unlawful discriminatory motive. This standard is grounded in […]
Click here to read the Chinese version of this post We are largely in uncharted territory, but the answer may depend on factors such as the severity of the crisis in your location, what kinds of orders and directives (e.g. a stay-at-home or shelter-in-place order) are in effect where you live and work, the state […]
You can learn a lot from a sports blog. Including, oddly enough, the purposes of class action lawsuits. Last month, while browsing the latest news on one of my favorite sports teams, I unexpectedly came across a dialogue on the NHL concussions lawsuit and settlement. See NHL Players Concussion Injury Litig., No. 14-md-2551 (D. Minn.), […]
Congress initially enacted the protections of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. The act was passed between the ratification of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In relevant part, the current act provides: (a) Statement of equal […]
Most, if not all, states have insurance fraud prevention statutes designed to punish those who defraud private insurers. California, however, has enacted a law that takes insurance fraud prevention a step further. The California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (“IFPA”) contains qui tam provisions that allow individuals or entities, known as relators: i) to blow the […]
The short answer is quite possibly. In many cases, law partners may be regarded as “employees” under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and other laws – and therefore eligible to sue their firms for employment discrimination, retaliation, and similar unlawful treatment. The issue of whether a […]