Credibility is an aspect of workplace investigations that is often challenged in subsequent litigation. The framework that follows is designed to provide Florida practitioners with a structured approach to making and documenting credibility determinations that withstand scrutiny. This approach is useful when advising employers on investigation design as well as when evaluating an investigation after the fact.

Why Credibility Determinations Matter

Under the framework established by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (Title VII cases), an employer may avoid liability by demonstrating that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing behavior and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities. A prompt and reasonable investigation is the central showing under the first prong of that defense. Both private and public employers in Florida operate under this framework because the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) is interpreted in a manner consistent with Title VII. The “reasonable investigation” defense has limits that practitioners on both sides of the bar must understand. It is unavailable when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, and it is unavailable when a constructive discharge follows an official act of the employer. However, when the defense is available, the quality of the employer’s investigation is the central battleground.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama is the controlling authority on what “reasonable” means in this context. The court recognized the inherent difficulty of the task, citing the Seventh Circuit’s observation that it is difficult for an employer to sort out charges and countercharges of harassment among employees with competing accounts. Importantly, the standard is reasonableness, not perfection.

In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, SCOTUS noted that the question of whether alleged conduct was unwelcome “turns largely on credibility determinations.” When the investigation’s credibility assessment is challenged as unreasonable, the employer’s entire affirmative defense is at risk. It is important for management-side practitioners to understand how to structure investigations so that credibility findings are defensible. Plaintiff-side practitioners evaluating whether an investigation was reasonable or pretextual will look at how the investigator handled competing accounts. For both, the credibility determination is the point at which the investigation either withstands scrutiny or falls apart.

Framework for Evaluating Credibility

Credibility assessment is not a single judgment. It is an analytical process that requires the investigator to evaluate competing accounts against multiple established factors, determine how those factors interact in the specific case, and reach a conclusion that can be explained and defended. The distinction matters. A checklist of factors to consider is useful as a starting point, but it is not a framework. A framework tells the investigator how to move from raw information to a reasoned determination when accounts conflict.

The analytical sequence begins with corroboration, the single most important factor. Corroboration is external confirmation of a witness’s account: documents, electronic records, video, audio, testimony from someone who was present, or testimony from someone who received a contemporaneous report of the incident. When corroboration exists, it carries more weight than any other factor because it moves the analysis beyond one person’s word against another’s. The investigator’s first task, before weighing any other credibility factor, is to identify and exhaust all available sources of corroboration. Baldwin itself reinforces this point: the court held that an employer is not required to credit uncorroborated statements disputed by the alleged harasser.

When corroboration is absent or inconclusive, the remaining factors require more extensive analysis. In addition to corroboration, practitioners and courts have long applied a set of established evidentiary principles for evaluating witness credibility: inherent plausibility, demeanor, motive to falsify, and past record of similar conduct. These factors did not originate with any single agency or guidance document; they are analytical tools drawn from the laws of evidence, jury instructions, and decades of adjudicative practice. Their utility in workplace investigations persists regardless of shifts in agency policy. 

In that regard, on January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. That rescission, combined with an earlier nationwide injunction against the guidance’s gender-identity provisions, means no formal federal guidance on investigation methodology is currently in effect. However, as noted above, credibility factors derive from the laws of evidence and adjudicative practice rather than from any single agency’s guidance. Thus, they remain analytically sound and are widely applied by courts and trained investigators, irrespective of changes in EEOC enforcement policy.

Investigator neutrality is the precondition for reliable credibility analysis. An investigator who approaches the process with a predetermined conclusion or who treats the accused as presumptively guilty will produce findings that cannot withstand scrutiny. The EEOC’s Acting Chair recently reinforced this principle in the federal sector context, observing that a presumption of innocence for the accused furthers the truth-finding goal at the heart of the investigative process. That principle applies with equal force in private-sector investigations under Title VII and the FCRA. The credibility framework that follows assumes a neutral investigator applying established analytical principles to competing accounts. The factors interact. They do not operate in isolation, and a competent investigator does not simply check each box and tally a score. 

Application of the Framework

Consider a common scenario: a complainant reports that a supervisor made sexually explicit comments during a one-on-one meeting. The respondent denies it. No one else was present. The investigator’s analysis should proceed through the factors in a structured sequence.

First, the investigator should look for corroboration. Did the complainant tell anyone about the incident at or near the time it occurred? Contemporaneous corroboration (a text message to a friend, a complaint to a coworker the same day, a journal entry) is not as strong as direct witness corroboration, but it is meaningful because it may occur before a motive to fabricate might develop. Did the respondent make similar comments to other employees? If so, pattern evidence corroborates the complainant’s account even though no one else witnessed the specific incident.

Second, the investigator should evaluate inherent plausibility. Is it reasonable, given the workplace context, organizational structure, and what is known about the parties, that the alleged conduct could have occurred? Plausibility is not proof. It is a threshold assessment of whether the account makes sense on its face.

Third, the investigator should consider the motive to falsify. Both parties may have motives that cut against their credibility. The complainant may have a pending performance issue, and the respondent has an inherent motive to deny. Having a motive does not mean the person lied, but it is a factor the investigator must assess alongside the other evidence. Closely related is witness bias; that is, whether a witness has a personal, professional, or financial relationship with either party that could influence what the witness reports. Motive and bias are distinct concepts, but both bear on whether a witness’s account can be taken at face value.

Fourth, the investigator should examine internal consistency. Is each witness’s account consistent across multiple statements and within any single account? Effective questioning technique drives this analysis. By revisiting key topics at different points during the interview and framing questions from different angles, the investigator develops a sufficient record to assess whether the witness’s account holds together on the points that matter. An investigator should look for inconsistencies on significant points, not minor peripheral details, and should give the witness an opportunity to explain any discrepancy before drawing a negative inference. Memory is imperfect, and people do not tell stories identically every time. Inconsistency on a core element of the account is analytically different from inconsistency on a background detail.

Fifth, the investigator should consider the specificity and detail of the accounts. Specificity and detail are often relevant to evaluating a witness’s account, though they are not dispositive. An account that includes specific contextual details (what the person was wearing, what else was happening in the room, what was said immediately before and after) may carry more weight than a vague or conclusory account, but the investigator must be cautious about treating detail as a proxy for truthfulness.

Sixth, the investigator should evaluate any relevant past record. Has the respondent been the subject of prior complaints or substantiated findings involving similar conduct? Has the complainant filed prior complaints that were found to be without merit? Past history may be relevant, but it is not determinative. A respondent with a prior substantiated complaint is not automatically guilty of the current allegation; a complainant who filed a prior unfounded complaint is not automatically dishonest now. The investigator must evaluate past history as one factor among several, not as a shortcut to a conclusion.

Seventh, the investigator may consider demeanor. How did the witness present during the interview, and how did the witness respond to questions? A witness who is evasive, who repeatedly fails to answer direct questions, or whose manner of response changes markedly when the topic shifts to the contested events may be less credible than one who responds directly and consistently. That said, demeanor is the weakest credibility indicator and the most subjective. Research consistently demonstrates that many people cannot accurately detect deception simply by observing behavior. A deceptive witness may appear calm and credible; an honest person may be anxious simply because the investigation process is stressful. Cultural and individual differences in communication style further complicate demeanor assessment. Investigators who rely heavily on demeanor expose their findings to challenge on exactly this basis. Demeanor may be treated as supplemental, not foundational, and should never be the sole basis for a credibility determination. For these reasons, some investigators choose not to consider demeanor at all. 

The credibility framework’s strength lies in the interaction of these factors. Consider an investigator facing a one-on-one dispute with no corroboration. The complainant’s account is plausible, detailed, and internally consistent. The complainant has no apparent motive to fabricate. The respondent’s denial is vague and inconsistent with other known facts. Under these circumstances, the investigator is in a strong analytical position, not because any single factor is dispositive, but because the cumulative weight of the analysis supports a credibility finding. The determination rests on that cumulative weight.

Documenting Credibility Determinations

The investigation report will be closely scrutinized in litigation. How the investigator documents credibility findings determines whether the employer can defend the investigation’s outcome.

The most common documentation failure is conclusory language.“I believed the complainant” is not a defensible credibility finding. It tells the reader nothing about the basis for the belief. A defensible finding explains the analytical basis; e.g., the complainant’s account was more plausible because it was corroborated by a contemporaneous text message to a coworker, was internally consistent across two separate interviews, and was consistent with a pattern of similar complaints about the respondent, while, on the other hand, the respondent’s denial was vague, lacked specific detail, and was inconsistent with the respondent’s own prior written statement. That level of specificity connects the credibility finding to the analytical framework and gives the reader (and, if necessary, a court) a basis for evaluating whether the determination was reasonable.

Equally important, the report must address evidence that cuts against the finding. An investigator who reaches a credibility determination but omits discussion of contrary evidence produces a document that reads like advocacy, not analysis. The obligation to address contrary evidence is what distinguishes a reasoned conclusion from a predetermined one. As previously noted, Baldwin instructs courts to evaluate the overall reasonableness of the investigation. A report that acknowledges the contrary evidence, explains why it was insufficient to change the determination, and walks through the reasoning demonstrates the kind of balanced analysis that courts are seeking.

When credibility cannot be resolved, the report should say so. Not every investigation produces a clear winner. When the evidence is evenly balanced, the accounts are equally plausible, and no corroboration tips the scale, the investigator should document that a determination could not be made on the available evidence. This is not a failure of the investigation; it is an honest conclusion that reflects the limits of the evidence. The employer can still take appropriate preventive measures (additional training, monitoring, schedule adjustments) even without a substantiated finding.

Demeanor observations, when included, require context.“The complainant appeared nervous” means nothing without an explanation of why that observation is analytically significant in the specific case. Many witnesses are nervous during an investigation interview regardless of whether they are telling the truth. If demeanor is documented at all, it should be noted alongside the more reliable factors and should never carry disproportionate weight in the written analysis.

Common Pitfalls

Several recurring errors undermine credibility determinations even in otherwise competent investigations.

Confirmation bias is the most pervasive error. It arises when the investigator forms a preliminary conclusion early in the process and then interprets ambiguous evidence to confirm it. Confirmation bias is unintentional, which makes it difficult to detect in one’s own work. It affects both what the investigator looks for and how the investigator interprets what is found. The antidote is structural: the investigator should consciously seek evidence that contradicts the emerging theory and should interview all relevant witnesses before reaching any conclusion.

Equating a witness’s demonstration of emotion with credibility is a fundamental analytical error. A complainant who is visibly distressed is not necessarily credible; a respondent who is calm and composed is not necessarily truthful. Emotional presentation is not evidence. It can be a reaction to the investigative process and can be influenced by personality, culture, and individual coping mechanisms. The investigator who equates distress with truthfulness has substituted assumption for analysis.

Overeliance on demeanor is a related but distinct problem. As discussed above, demeanor is the weakest credibility indicator. An investigator who documents demeanor prominently and other factors superficially invites the argument that the determination was based on gut instinct rather than evidence. 

Failure to investigate inconsistencies occurs when the investigator identifies a discrepancy in a witness’s account but does not follow up. Noting an inconsistency without giving the witness an opportunity to explain it, and without pursuing additional corroboration, leaves the credibility determination incomplete. The inconsistency may have a reasonable explanation, and the investigator will not know unless the question is asked.

Applying different standards to the complainant and the respondent is a fairness error that can undermine the entire investigation. For example, if the investigator conducts three detailed follow-up interviews with the respondent to test the respondent’s account but accepts the complainant’s initial statement without similar scrutiny (or the reverse), the process is asymmetrical, and the finding is vulnerable to challenge.

Drafting the final report as an argument is a common pitfall that occurs when the investigator, having reached a conclusion, writes the report in support of that conclusion rather than as a neutral analysis. The report reads like a brief: favorable evidence is emphasized, contrary evidence is minimized or omitted, and the credibility analysis is presented as though the outcome was obvious. This is distinct from confirmation bias, which affects the investigation itself; the problem here is the tone of the report. The final investigation report is not a brief. It must be read as a balanced, reasoned analysis, not as an advocate’s closing argument.

Conclusion

The legal standard for the adequacy of an investigation is reasonableness, not perfection. Credibility assessment is at the core of determining reasonableness. Investigators who use a structured analytical framework and document their reasoning transparently will produce investigations that withstand scrutiny. Those who rely on gut instinct and conclusory findings produce investigations that do not. 

The framework is not complicated. It requires methodical analysis, not expertise in psychology. Start with corroboration. Work through the established analytical factors. Explain how the factors interact in the specific case. Document both the evidence that supports the finding and the evidence that cuts against it. When credibility cannot be resolved, say so.

Florida practitioners advising clients on designing investigations, or on evaluating investigations after the fact, should treat credibility methodology as the central question, not an afterthought. The credibility determination is where the investigation succeeds or fails, and it is the determination that courts will examine most closely when the investigation is challenged. 

This article was originally published by The Florida Bar Labor and Employment Law Section in the June 2026 issue of The Checkoff.

The post Credibility Determinations in Workplace Investigations: A Practical Framework or Florida Practitioners appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

WSHC+B welcomes Shana H. Bridgeman as Partner in the firm’s Boca Raton office and as a member of its Labor and Employment Division.

Shana has more than 22 years of legal experience, including 19 years representing management, businesses, and municipal clients in labor and employment matters throughout Florida. She handles a broad range of labor and employment law issues, including collective bargaining, employee discipline, grievances, policy development, employment agreements, and overall risk management.

Her practice encompasses matters arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Florida Civil Rights Act. Shana represents employers before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, Florida Commission on Human Relations, Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, and in arbitration proceedings.

Shana also conducts workplace investigations involving harassment, discrimination, retaliation, misconduct, and ethics and policy violations. She holds an Association of Workplace Investigators Certificate Holder (AWI-CH) designation.

“Shana’s breadth of experience in labor and employment law and workplace investigations makes her an exceptional addition to our team,” said Brett J. Schneider, Partner and Chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Division. “I have known Shana for many years, and I believe her significant experience and interpersonal skills, combined with her deep roots in South Florida, positions her to deliver immediate value to our clients throughout the region.”

Shana began her legal career as an Assistant State Attorney at the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, where she served as first-chair trial counsel in approximately 50 trials. She subsequently spent over 15 years practicing labor and employment law at a full-service law firm representing municipal and private clients across Florida.

Most recently, Shana founded and operated her own law firm, providing management-side legal counsel, investigation services, and compliance consulting to businesses, local government entities, and HR directors throughout Florida.

Shana earned her Juris Doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law and her Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Florida. She has been admitted to practice law in Florida since 2005 and is also admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The post WSHC+B Welcomes Shana H. Bridgeman as Partner in Boca Raton appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

• Milton R. Collins (Labor & Employment, Employee Benefits)
• Michael Kantor (Labor & Employment Litigation)
• Caroline G. Saiz (Labor & Employment, Government Agencies)
• Brett J. Schneider (Labor & Employment, Litigation, Collective Bargaining)
• Alison F. Smith (Labor & Employment, Litigation, Collective Bargaining)

According to Lawdragon, this annual guide recognizes “the nation’s best advisors on the world of employment and labor law – from employee benefits and executive compensation; to traditional labor matters; immigration; and, of course, all matter of litigation and arbitration – from wage and hour class actions, to discrimination, trade secrets and non-compete agreements.”

Honorees are selected through a proprietary process, combining journalistic research and vetting, as well as submissions from peers, competitors and firms. This is the 19th edition of the guide to the nation’s best advisors on the world of employment and labor law – from employee benefits and executive compensation; to traditional labor matters; immigration; and, of course, all matter of litigation and arbitration – from wage and hour class actions, to discrimination, trade secrets and non-compete agreements.

View the full guide here.

The post Five WSHC+B Partners Recognized in 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Corporate Employment Lawyers Guide appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Hosted by WSHC+B partner Marlon Hill, the series brings together lawyer from across North America, including Aarij Wasti (partner at Gowling WLG, Toronto), Juan Carlos Partida (partner at EC Rubio, Mexico City), and other WSHC+B attorneys who focus their practice on governmental affairs, sports and entertainment, immigration, intellectual property, business transactions, labor & employment, and real property.

The series breaks down the complex issues stakeholders face—from immigration and border protocols to sponsorship, licensing, and venue operations. Each episode delivers actionable guidance and real-world examples, equipping in-house counsel, sponsors, venue operators, government liaisons, and other professionals to navigate challenges and turn them into opportunities.Sideline Conversations: Road to ’26 is designed for anyone looking to stay informed on the cross-border legal and commercial trends shaping the FIFA World Cup 2026 experience.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to catch each monthly episode and stay ahead of the conversation.

Watch the first episode here: https://youtu.be/LTELlMfUbsQ?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

The post WSHC+B Launches New Series: Sideline Conversations: Road to ’26 appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Key Provisions of the CHOICE Act

1. Presumption of Enforceability

The Act establishes a presumption that certain non-compete and garden leave agreements are enforceable and do not violate public policy, provided they meet specific criteria. Courts are required to issue injunctions enforcing covered agreements, shifting the burden of proof onto the former employee or poaching employer to establish certain narrow defenses. This marks a significant shift from existing law, which requires employers seeking enforcement to prove the existence of a legitimate business interest supporting the restrictive covenant, irreparable harm, and several other elements. The existing legal standard will continue to apply to agreements that are not covered by the CHOICE Act.

2. Covered Employees

The Act applies to employees or contractors who:

• Work primarily in Florida or for an employer with its principal place of business in Florida.
• Earn or are expected to earn a salary exceeding twice the annual mean wage of the relevant county.
• Are not classified as healthcare practitioners under Florida law.

3. Requirements for Presumptively Enforceable Agreements

Non-Compete Agreements will be presumed to be enforceable if:

1. The employee is informed in writing of their right to seek legal counsel before signing the agreement and is given at least seven days to review the agreement before signing.
2. The employee acknowledges in writing that they will receive confidential information or information about customer relationships during their employment.
3. The employee agrees not to assume a role with or for another business that provides services similar to those provided to the covered employer during the three years preceding the non-compete period, or in which it is reasonably likely that they would use confidential information or customer relationships.
4. The non-compete period does not exceed four years.
5. If the employee is granted a covered garden leave agreement, the non-compete period is reduced day-for-day by any non-working portion of the notice period.
6. It’s important to note that there are no restrictions on the geographic scope of a covered non-compete agreement.

Similarly, Garden Leave Agreements are presumed enforceable if:

1. The employee is informed in writing of their right to seek legal counsel before signing the agreement and has at least seven days to review the agreement before signing.
2. The employee and employer agree to provide up to four years’ advance notice before terminating employment, which is known as the “notice period.”
3. During the notice period, the employer agrees to pay the employee their regular base salary and benefits.
4. The employee acknowledges in writing that they may receive confidential information or information about customer relationships during their employment.
5. The garden leave provisions provide that:

• After the first 90 days of the notice period, the covered employee is not required to provide services to the covered employer.
• During the remainder of the notice period, the covered employee may engage in nonwork activities, including during normal business hours.
• The covered employee may also work for another employer with the permission of the covered employer during the remainder of the notice period.

Action Steps for Employers

1. Review your existing agreements and assess whether they need modifications to align with the Act’s definition of a “covered” garden leave or non-compete agreement.
2. Restrictive covenants can still be enforced against employees earning less than twice the mean salary for the applicable county. However, employers won’t have a preliminary injunction without demonstrating a legitimate business interest and irreparable harm.
3. Review your company’s confidentiality protocols and ensure comprehensive, up-to-date, and legally compliant policies regarding trade secrets, customer information, and confidential information. While the CHOICE Act only requires employees to acknowledge access to confidential information, implementing additional guardrails enhances overall security.

The post Client Alert: New Florida CHOICE Act Reshapes Non-Compete Landscape appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Section 3 of the EO, titled “Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government,” specifically addresses the federal contracting process and revokes several previous executive orders and memoranda, including Executive Order 11246 (“EO 11246”). Originally established in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson, EO 11246 prohibited employment discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. EO 11246 also required covered contractors to take affirmative action to ensure equal employment. President Trump’s EO now bars federal contractors from considering race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin in their employment, procurement or contracting practices “in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.” The EO ultimately eliminates affirmative action plan obligations for federal contractors.

Section 4 of the EO, titled “Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences” directs federal agencies, in coordination with the attorney general, to take necessary actions to implement the EO’s principles. Within 120 days, the attorney general, in consultation with agency heads, is required to submit a report with recommendations for enforcing federal civil rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI. This report must outline key areas of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction, identify the most egregious DEI practices, propose specific measures to deter illegal discrimination, suggest strategies for private sector engagement, and indicate potential litigation and regulatory actions.

It is crucial to note that President Trump’s EO does not alter existing anti-discrimination laws (like Title VII or the Florida Civil Rights Act) or their judicial interpretations. However, we strongly encourage employers, particularly federal contractors, to evaluate their current DEI initiatives and/or programs to ensure potential compliance with the EO.

We will continue to monitor developments regarding this executive order. If you have any questions or concerns about it or other employment-related executive orders, please feel free to reach out to us.

The post Client Alert: What President Trump’s Executive Order on DEI Means for Employers appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

In Miami, attorneys Emma Rodgers and Katharine Rodriguez-Wilson joined WSHC+B’s Real Estate practice, and Pooja Patel joined the firm’s Labor and Employment practice. Rodgers and Rodriguez-Wilson are graduates of the University of Miami School of Law. Patel earned her Juris Doctor from Florida International University College of Law.

Rodgers, a former clerk at WSHC+B, is versed in business and commercial real estate transactions, drafting land use documents for local municipalities, and negotiating entertainment service contracts. Rodriguez-Wilson’s practice focuses on real estate transactions and public financing for multifamily developments. Patel works with public and private sector employers to analyze their compliance with labor and employment laws and to help mitigate potential future legal problems.

In Fort Lauderdale, attorney Michael Weitzner brings experience in business transactions and litigation. Before joining WSHC+B, Weitzner worked for a community association law firm specializing in transactional and litigation services. While there, the University of Miami School of Law graduate litigated various cases for plaintiffs and defendants, including property damage, premises liability, breach of contract, and enforcement actions.

WSHC+B also welcomed the arrival of Human Resources Consultant Sharon Kelley at its Boca Raton office.

Kelley has vast public and private sector experience in labor relations and human resources. She has worked with local governments, federal agencies, and educational institutions in the public sector. On the private side, Kelley has worked in various industries, such as transportation, manufacturing, insurance defense, and corrections/detention industries. Throughout her career, Kelley has proven herself a skilled negotiator, successfully handling collective bargaining agreements, arbitrations, and settlements.

“We are fortunate to close out the year with the arrival of these talented attorneys and professionals,” Firm Managing Director Mitch Burnstein said. “Emma, Katharine, Pooja and Michael bolster multiple practice areas of our firm, and we are eager to leverage Sharon’s wisdom, experience and abilities in this newly created role.”

The post WSHC+B Makes Several Key Additions Across South Florida appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Pou is a member of WSHC+B’s Government practice and represents municipalities on a broad range of matters, including drafting contracts and legislation. He was instrumental in the creation of the firm’s Disaster Recovery practice, in which WSHC+B provides legal guidance to ensure that governments and eligible nonprofit entities have FEMA-compliant disaster response contracts before being stricken by a severe weather event or natural disaster.

A graduate of the Florida International University College of Law, Pou is very involved with the Cuban American Bar Association (CABA) and completed its Leadership, Education, and Development (L.E.A.D.) program in 2024.

Saiz is part of the firm’s Labor & Employment practice, representing management of municipal government agencies. Her previous experience includes a decade of serving as staff counsel at Florida’s largest police union, counseling employees in all aspects of arbitration hearings, disciplinary appeals, collective bargaining grievances and administrative investigations. Saiz also has experience in dependency law.

A graduate of the University of Miami School of Law, Saiz was inducted into the Society of Bar and Gavel and founded the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund organization.

Wood, specializing in land use, zoning, and general government matters, represents developers and governmental entities, guiding them through complex legal landscapes to achieve their goals. She has extensive experience advising municipal clients on public records compliance, sunshine law, ethics, comprehensive planning, procurement, utilities, administrative, and constitutional law. Additionally, she works closely with private property owners and developers to navigate the intricacies of the development review process, including securing approvals for affordable housing developments.

A frequent speaker on land use and affordable housing, Wood is passionate about addressing housing challenges and helping her clients bring transformative projects to life. She is widely recognized for her strategic insights and unwavering commitment to supporting developers and entrepreneurs as they shape thriving communities. In addition to her legal practice, Wood is a strong advocate for wellness in the professional space, emphasizing the importance of fostering a balanced and fulfilling lifestyle, and inspiring those around her to prioritize holistic well-being.

A graduate of St. Thomas University School of Law, Wood’s professional and community involvement includes her current role as the 2026 President-Elect of the Women’s Chamber of Commerce of Miami-Dade County.

“These three attorneys stand out as talented practitioners and emerging leaders in the legal industry and community,” Firm Managing Director Mitch Burnstein said. “We congratulate Roger, Caroline and Chanae on their well-deserved promotions to Partner and will enthusiastically support them in this new role.”

The post WSHC+B Names Several New Partners appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

On August 20, 2024, however, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas enjoined the implementation of the Noncompete Ban, meaning that it will no longer take effect on September 4, 2024 (or at any point thereafter, unless there is a successful appeal of Judge Brown’s ruling). In particular, Judge Brown found that the FTC lacked authority to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition, which importantly includes the Noncompete Ban. This ruling returns employers to the status quo, allowing for enforcement of noncompete agreements according to current state-specific frameworks.

Should you have any inquiries or seek clarification on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The post Client Alert: Federal Court Blocks FTC Noncompete Ban From Taking Effect appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Of the 47 lawyers recognized, 12 of the firm’s attorneys were recognized for the very first time and 14 attorneys were recognized as Ones to Watch. 

Best Lawyers has employed the same transparent methodology for more than 35 years, based entirely on peer review. 

The following includes all Firm attorneys named and areas in which they are recognized:

Miami

• Mitchell A. Bierman (Administrative / Regulatory Law, Government Contracts, Government Relations Practice)
• Lillian Arango (Real Estate Law)
• Maria Victoria Currais (Real Estate Law)
• Jeffrey Decarlo (Commercial Litigation, Public Finance Law)
• Alan K. Fertel (Sports Law)
• Chad S. Friedman (Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law)
• Jessika Arce Graham (Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law)
• Edward G. Guedes (Appellate Practice)
• Stephen J. Helfman (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Juan P. Loumiet (Litigation – Real Estate, Real Estate Law)
• Justin Luger (Commercial Litigation)
• Anthony L. Recio (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Paul Ryder (Employment Law – Management)
• Clifford A. Schulman (Environmental Law, Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Joseph H. Serota (Commercial Litigation)
• Eduardo M. Soto (Real Estate Law)
• Richard Jay Weiss (Government Relations Practice)
• Laura K. Wendell (Appellate Practice)
• David M. Wolpin (Employment Law – Management, Government Relations Practice)
• Daniela Cimo (Ones to Watch: Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Kelsie Elmer (Ones to Watch: Real Estate Law)
• Roger C. Pou (Ones to Watch: Municipal Law)
• Samantha W. Soto (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment)
• Alejandro Uribe (Ones to Watch: Land Use and Zoning Law)

Fort Lauderdale

• Daniel L. Abbott (Litigation – Land Use and Zoning)
• Mitchell J. Burnstein (Commercial Litigation, Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law)
• Jamie A. Cole (Commercial Litigation)
• Alicia Gonzalez (Real Estate Law)
• Paul Gougelman (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Michael J. Kurzman (Construction Law, Litigation – Construction)
• Matthew H. Mandel (Commercial Litigation)
• Eric L. Stettin (Commercial Litigation)
• Susan L. Trevarthen (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Peter D. Waldman (Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law)
• Isabella Falcon (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)
• Anne Reilly Flanigan (Ones to Watch: Appellate Practice, Civil Rights Law, Commercial Litigation)
• Narinah Jean-Baptiste (Ones to Watch: Municipal Law)
• Bryan C. Siddique (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)
• Alison F. Smith (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management)
• Blayne Yudis (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)

Boca Raton

• Howard D. Dubosar (Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Bankruptcy)
• Andrew S. Maurodis (Land Use and Zoning Law)
• Brett J. Schneider (Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Union, Litigation – Labor and Employment)
• David N. Tolces (Real Estate Law)
• Ethan Goldstein (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)
• Ryan Hudak (Ones to Watch: Labor and Employment Law – Management)
• Jeremy S. Rosner (Ones to Watch: Commercial Litigation)

The post WSHC+B Attorneys Selected for Inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America 2025 appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.