Trial Experience & Empathy
A lot of employment law attorneys advise their clients to settle their cases and avoid trial. We treat employment law cases differently because we’ve been in your shoes. Early in his career, firm founder David Koller suffered a debilitating knee injury and filed an ADA disability discrimination claim against his then-employer, a law firm in Philadelphia. This gives Koller Law a unique perspective and passion for pursuing justice. At Koller Law, clients can expect compassion, empathy and a willingness to pursue employment cases as far as possible – trial and appeal, if necessary. See our latest employment law results.
May 2026 Update: Our Latest PA Jury Trial Verdict Win – PA Federal Jury Awarded $203,500 to Our Client Who Was Fired After Going on Leave
Koller Law represents a dispensary employee who was terminated after he went on FMLA leave to recover from injuries sustained in a car accident. Thereafter, our client advised his employer he was willing and able to return from FMLA leave; however, he never heard back. Our client was then fired in an email. In the Complaint, we alleged that our client was discriminated against and his employer’s action violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
On May 13, 2026, a Pennsylvania federal jury awarded a verdict in favor of our client for $203,500. This verdict is broken down into $25,000 for emotional distress, $78,500 in back pay and $100,000 in punitive damages.
March 2026 Update: Our Latest Employment Law Win in The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Has Significant Implications
Koller Law represents a former EOTech, LLC employee in her lawsuit alleging discrimination violations of Title VII, the ADEA, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practice Act (MFEPA). Before starting her job, Plaintiff signed an EOTech-drafted document that included language purporting to shorten the time she would otherwise have to sue EOTech for any disputes relating to her employment. The agreement is referred to as the Limitations Agreement.
EOTech moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, asserting it was untimely under the Limitations Agreement. The district court granted summary judgment to EOTech on all claims, concluding that the parties – through the Limitations Agreement – had validly shortened Thomas’s timeframe to sue and that the complaint was thus untimely. Plaintiff appealed the decision.
On March 4, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that employment agreements attempting to shorten the statutory time limits for filing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) are unenforceable. The opinion vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of EOTech, which had relied on a 180-day limitations clause in Thomas’s employment agreement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
May 2025 Update: Our Latest Employment Law Win
Koller Law represents a former Philadelphia Police Lieutenant in his lawsuit alleging age discrimination against the City of Philadelphia. The Lieutenant’s supervisor made several ageist comments and statements and reassigned the Lieutenant to a less favorable squad with fewer opportunities for advancement and overtime pay. The City moved to dismiss the case before trial claiming that because the Lieutenant’s title and base pay did not change, he did not suffer an adverse employment action. The Trial Court agreed and dismissed the case.
We appealed, and after briefs and oral argument before the Third Circuit in early 2025, a panel of Appellate Judges ruled on May 14, 2025 that the Trial Court used the wrong standard to determine if the transfer could constitute enough employment related harm to proceed to a trial and reinstated the Lieutenant’s case. This opinion reaffirms the standard set in Peifer v. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 106 F.4th 270 (3d Cir. 2024) – a prior precedent-setting opinion based on an appeal brought by Koller Law – that an employee need not demonstrate a significant, serious, nor substantial change to the terms and conditions of employment to succeed on a discrimination claim; only that they suffered “some harm” with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.
Koller Law won an appeal before the Third Circuit in the McCrorey case by citing another one of our own cases from the Third Circuit (Peifer) where a year prior, also after an appeal, briefing and oral argument, our firm set the standard on this important legal issue in employment cases of what is the proper standard for what constitutes an adverse employment action. View Law360 Article May 15, 2025.
June 2022 Update: Our Latest Employment Law Win
Koller Law Firm is representing 3 workers in a wrongful termination case against a car dealership in Monroe County, PA. The case involves our clients’ claim that they were terminated after refusing to report to work in violation of a government order that shut down all non-essential businesses during the 2020 COVID pandemic. Last month, a judge ruled that the case would go forward, denying the employer’s preliminary objections. This case expands the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in PA and highlights Koller Law’s continuing efforts to push the envelope when it comes to employee rights. View the June 16, 2022 Opinion and Order.
