Overview

An accomplished litigation attorney, Patrick Brady has worked extensively on complex FLSA/state wage and hour collective/class action and other employment-based class actions. He also represents employers in wrongful discharge, sexual harassment, breach of contract, discrimination/retaliation, whistleblower, WARN Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act matters.

Patrick has litigated numerous employment discrimination cases in state and federal court, resulting in successful jury verdicts. In addition, he defends employers in single-plaintiff and class action claims arising under ERISA and other benefits litigation, litigates to protect corporate trade secrets and to enforce restrictive covenants, and represents management in labor relation matters, including collective bargaining and arbitrations.

Employers also rely on Patrick to represent them in compliance reviews under the Immigration Reform and Control Act and to assist in obtaining non-immigrant and immigrant visas.

Read more

Patrick is a frequent speaker at industry conferences and seminars. For example, he participated in the NELA-NJ Annual Conference: October 30, 2015 – “Title VII/Federal Agency Protections for Transgender Individuals: Emerging Issues in the Defense of Discrimination Claims Based on Gender Identity/Expression and Sexual Orientation.”

Read less

Focus Areas

Experience

Appellate Cases

Kaspi v. Home Depot (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2012). After a six week trial conducted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, during March 1-31, 2011, the jury entered a defense verdict rejecting plaintiff’s claims of a hostile work environment due to religion, national origin, and disability status and retaliatory discharge. The Appellate Division dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal on April 30, 2012.

Eustache v. Home Depot, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123509 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), aff’d, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19198 (2d Cir. 2015).The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment dismissing claims of reverse gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

Ganz v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 17-cv-6805, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. By Order and Opinion dated December 26, 2019, the District Court entered summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety alleging hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and the New Jersey Family Leave Act. Ganz v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 17-6805, 2019 WL 7187405 (D.N.J. Dec. 26, 2019). The plaintiff’s appeal to the Third Circuit was dismissed.

Moses v. Home Depot, CV-16-2400, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. By Opinion and Order entered on March 20, 2018, the court granted Home Depot’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s hostile work environment (race) and discriminatory/retaliatory discharge under Title VII as time-barred and denied equitable tolling; found that there is no individual liability under Title VII; and concluded that service of process on the individual defendants was defective. The court also dismissed the Pennsylvania law claims after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Moses v. Home Depot Inc. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53595 (D.N.J. March 20, 2018). By Order dated June 14, 2019, the Third Circuit dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.

District Court Cases

Donovan v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2937, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168188 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Rite Aid of New York, Inc., and David Harper, dismissing the claims of plaintiff Frederick Donovan, a former assistant store manager who participated in class action litigation alleging overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). In its decision, the court determined that, as a matter of law, the class action settlement agreement, of which the plaintiff was an opt-in member, released all the claims alleged in his subsequent lawsuit, including his claims of retaliation.

The 10 individual cases that follow were brought by former opt-ins who were part of a FLSA nationwide conditional collective action that was decertified:

1. Marine v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176823 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court dismissed the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.Civ.P”) 41(b) for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

2. Biagiotti v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 503 B.R. 232 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court applied judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims because the plaintiff failed to list those claims in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

3. Yuskauskas v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176238 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court applied judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims because the plaintiff failed to list those claims in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

4. Schneider v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176234 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). The court applied judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s FLSA claims and NYLL state law misclassification claims because the plaintiff failed to list those claims in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

5-10. In each of the following six cases, the court granted summary judgment to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs, each former assistant store managers, who participated in litigation alleging overtime violations under the FLSA and the NYLL. In each decision, the court found that the plaintiff was properly classified as a bona fide executive exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the federal and state laws.

  • Repp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79882 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
  • Pangione v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79761 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
  • Glickman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75180 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
  • Holloway v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62187 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
  • Yingling v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 12-cv-837, ECF No. 190, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116907 (N.D.N.Y. 2014).
  • Amash v. Home Depot, 12-cv-837, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133214(N.D.N.Y. 2014).

Parson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-4817, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26503 (D.N.J. 2014). By Order dated March 3, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for retaliatory discharge for reporting breaches of company privacy policy in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead the statute, regulation, or public policy that was violated in the plaintiff’s discharge.

Rodriguez v. Canada Dry Bottling Company, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134838, 2015 WL 5770502 (D.N.J. 2015) (Hayden J.). By Order dated September 30, 2015, the District Court granted Canada Dry’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claims of three distributors for misclassification under the FLSA and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and for benefits under ERISA, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Frazier v. Home Depot, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147098, 2016 WL 4820172 (D.N.J. 2016)(Linares J.). By Order dated February 8, 2016, the District Court granted Home Depot’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII claims of race discrimination and retaliatory discharge for failure to plead discrimination and retaliation claims. By Order entered on April 5, 2016, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Kennantudawe v. Home Depot, Civil Action No. 15-8752 (MCA/SCM) (D.N.J. 2016). By Order dated August 2, 2016, the court granted Home Depot’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to meet pleading requirements. By Order dated August 26, 2016, the court closed the case.

Yesmin v. Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc., No. CV 10-4157, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127655 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). By Order entered on September 6, 2012, the court granted Rite Aid’s motion for summary judgment dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff’s FLSA claim for unpaid overtime because he was misclassified under the executive exemption.

Cancel v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 18-cv-12863, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. By Order dated April 18, 2019, the court granted Home Depot’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s pro se Complaint without prejudice alleging disability discrimination, and permitted the plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by May 17, 2019. Cancel v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 18-12863 (MAS)(TJB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66798, at *1-2 (D.N.J. April 18, 2019). The plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint by the May 17, 2019, deadline. The court closed the case.

Juan Vallejo v. Rite Aid, OCR No. 18-290089. On December 11, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), issued a Complaint on behalf of Juan Vallejo (Complainant) alleging that Rite Aid engaged in unlawful discrimination based on his race or national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, both of which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. On December 19, 2018, OCR issued a letter opinion rejecting Complainant’s allegations holding that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate Complainant’s allegation that Rite Aid discriminated against him on the basis of his race or national origin.

Recognition

Listed in:

  • Martindale-Hubbell: Rated “AV Preeminent.” This award is conferred by Martindale-Hubbell. A description of the selection methodology is available here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
  • Chambers USA, America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, New Jersey—Labor & Employment Law (2006, 2008 to 2023). This award is conferred by Chambers and Partners. A description of the selection methodology is available here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
  • The Best Lawyers in America©, Employment Law—Management, Labor Law—Management, and Qui Tam Law (2006 to 2024); “Lawyer of the Year,” Employment Law—Management, Newark (2019, 2022). This award is conferred by Best Lawyers. A description of the selection methodology is available here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
  • The Legal 500 United States, Labor and Employment Disputes (Including Collective Actions): Defense (2012 to 2022). This award is conferred by The Legal 500. A description of the selection methodology is available here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
  • New Jersey Super Lawyers®, Employment & Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits (2005 to 2023). This award is conferred by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology is available here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
  • Who’s Who Legal, Labour & Employment (2019 to 2020). This award is conferred by Who's Who Legal. A description of the selection methodology is available here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Credentials

Education

  • Rutgers University School of Law – Newark (J.D., 1980)
  • Rutgers University, The Graduate School – New Brunswick (Ph.D., 1975)
  • Rutgers University, The Graduate School – New Brunswick (M.A., 1969)
  • Fairleigh Dickinson University (B.A., 1968)

Bar Admissions

Court Admissions

Professional & Community Involvement

  • American Employment Law Council
  • American Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section
  • New Jersey State Bar Association
  • New York State Bar Association
  • Essex County Bar Association, President (2003-2004) and Trustee (1996-2000), Chair of Immigration Law Section
  • American Immigration Lawyers Association

Events

Insights

Insights

Jump to Page

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.