Last Updated on November 5, 2026 by Fly High Coaching
Not every unfair situation at work is an employment law case, and knowing the difference can save you time, money, and a lot of frustration. A rude boss, a missed promotion, or a gossipy coworker can feel deeply wrong, but that does not always mean the law was broken. Do you know whether your situation is a workplace grievance or something an attorney would actually take on?
In this episode, you will learn more about what separates a strong employment law case from a worker grievance. Our host and CEO Porschia, alongside our guest, Ilona Anderson, will share their insight on why “unfair” and “illegal” are not the same thing, and why Ilona declines 90 to 95% of the people who come to her for help.
They will also discuss the 4 components that make an employment law case strong, and the 2 main buckets most cases fall into. The conversation also covers the 3 biggest mistakes professionals make when working with attorneys, including one deadline that can wipe out even a very strong case, plus what you should know about arbitration clauses, non-competes, and severance before you sign anything.
Ilona Anderson is a trademark and employment law attorney and founder of Carpe Diem Law Firm. She represents both employees and employers, which gives her a rare view of workplace conflict from both sides. She helps professionals and businesses prevent and solve problems at work.
What you’ll learn:
- The difference between a worker grievance and a strong employment law case
- 4 components every viable employment law case needs to have
- Why quitting before you talk to an attorney can weaken your position
- What to document and report before you consult an attorney
- 3 biggest mistakes professionals make when they think they have a case
- What to know about arbitration clauses, non-competes, and severance before you sign an employment agreement
Resources:
- Episode Transcript
Porschia: [00:00:00] Today, we are talking about the difference between a strong employment law case versus a worker grievance with Ilona Anderson. Ilona Anderson is a Florida employment and trademark attorney, and founder of Carpe DM Law Firm. She works with both employers and employees to navigate complex workplace issues, focusing on clarity, strategy, and prevention.
Ilona is passionate about helping professionals understand the difference between a workplace grievance and a [00:01:00] legally viable claim so they can make informed decisions about their next steps. Hi, Ilona. How are you today?
Ilona: Hi, Portia. I’m doing fantastic. Thank you for having me.
Porschia: We’re excited to have you with us to discuss the differences between a strong employment law case and when someone just has a grievance.
But first, we wanna know a little more about you. So tell me about seven-year-old Ilona.
Ilona: Ooh, seven-year-old Ilona was running around Russ- actually, you know what? Not Russia, I just realized. At the age of seven, my family moved to Algeria for three years. My dad was working… He’s a welding engineer. He was working on power plant construction, so it was actually from age seven to 10.
So seven-year-old Ilona was running around the Mediterranean beach in Algeria. And she always had a very strong sense of fairness and justice. She’s she’s the person who always felt, “Oh my God this [00:02:00] situation was unfair,” and always stood up for other people. I think she was already practicing employment law in the playground without realizing-
it and without the bar license.
Porschia: Love it. Love it. And then it would’ve been international law as well, Ilona, right? That’s right. What did seven-year-old Ilona want to be when she grew up?
Ilona: I wanted to be an actress or a singer, but I can’t sing to save my life. I love to sing, but I’m the kind of singer to where we go to karaoke, and I’d be singing my heart out, and then friends would be coming up to my husband and be like, “Does she realize how bad she is?”
Porschia: Aw.
Ilona: So that wouldn’t go anywhere. Acting, I didn’t really, put any effort into it. And law is something that I actually considered since ear- my early teens. I was always I was always a studious child. I like books. I like exploring concepts. I like philosophy. I think I’ve known pretty [00:03:00] early maybe from early high school years that eventually I would be going to law school.
Porschia: Great. So tell us about some highlights or pivotal moments in your career before you started your own firm.
Ilona: Yeah, my career in the law was not linear. I started out at big law. I always had fascination with it, and I just knew I wanted to be a big law litigator. And so I started at a big law firm in downtown Miami.
Then I worked at KPMG in their legal department doing mergers and acquisitions and due diligence projects. Then I worked for a prominent PI law firm handling asbestos, tobacco, defective drugs, medical malpractice and products liability cases. But the most pivotal moment, I would say there were two most pivotal moments in my career.
Number one is when I initially went out on my own, and that decision was made when I got pregnant with my first child because I realized that I didn’t want to put my career on hold, but I also did not want to be an absentee parent. [00:04:00] And this was pre-COVID, pre-flexible work arrangement we were working at the office six days a week.
Saturdays were mandatory. And and I realized, you know what? The only way for me to be the kind of parent I want to be without putting my career on hold is to start something of my own while the baby’s still in the belly ideally, right? So I gave my notice when I was five or six months pregnant. Started building up my own firm, and then very shortly thereafter, met the person who then became my law partner for the next 10 years, and then together we built and scaled an employee rights boutique law firm in Miami.
And then the second pivotal moment was when I me- made the decision to leave that partnership and start building my own law firm, which is the current law firm, Carpe Diem Law Firm. And both of those decisions were very scary because I wasn’t leaving something bad. I was leaving something good with the idea that it could be better but also with a big risk, right?
But I [00:05:00] find that when you, Trust yourself and make those big leaps. Universe supports you and things always work out in the end.
Porschia: I love that. And I was just thinking about your bravery, right? And the courage that you had to have to, start thinking about starting your own thing, with a partner while pregnant.
Definitely wanna acknowledge you for being so courageous. Before we get in too deep with today’s topic, I wanna know what is your definition of a worker grievance, Ilona?
Ilona: So a worker grievance would be something at work that doesn’t feel good. Perhaps you feel underappreciated, perhaps you didn’t get that promotion perhaps your boss is being rude to you bec- perhaps that, girl in the next cubicle is annoying or jealous of you or gossipy or spreading rumors about you.
Those are all worker [00:06:00] grievances. Things at work that don’t feel good.
Porschia: Yeah. I’m just sitting here, and I’m thinking about clients and my own work experience, and there are a lot of things that can fall into that category Ilona.
We’ve discussed aspects of employment law on the podcast before, including discrimination, employment agreements, and non-compete agreements.
What do you think are the foundational components of a strong employment law case?
Ilona: So employment law cases typically for most employment attorneys who practice employment law kind of fall in two buckets. One would be wage and hour cases. So this is when somebody didn’t get paid their proper wages. It could be because they didn’t get paid their overtime, or perhaps they didn’t get paid their minimum wages, or maybe they were misclassified, or maybe misclassified as an independent contractor in- instead of an employee or as exempt when they shouldn’t have been exempt.
And then the second category [00:07:00] is really more discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination cases, and those are based on protected characteristics under federal and Fr- Florida law or protected conduct. And so key components of the cases would be, let’s talk, for example, about a discrimination wrongful termination case.
Number one, the person has to belong to a protected category, meaning that either they possess a protected characteristic, it could be their age, disability, race, national origin pregnancy status, things like that, or they’ve engaged in some protected conduct. Perhaps they took FMLA leave. Perhaps they complained about their unpaid wages.
Perhaps they spoke out against the discrimination of others or filed a valid workers’ compensation claim or attempt to file one. So number one, there has to be protected status for the worker. Number two, there has to be some type of adverse employment action. It’s not enough [00:08:00] for the employee to feel bad or uncomfortable or not like something.
There has to be tangible adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion. Those are really ideal. Termination is ideal, obviously from the standpoint of having a strong case, not for the worker. Or some sort of serious change in circ- in circumstances. Maybe they sent you to some remote location that’s where that’s either inconvenient or where you can’t make money, if you’re maybe like a commissioned employee.
Se- serious change in employment circumstances. And number three, there has to be the nexus between those two, between the protected status and adverse employment action. And that’s what really makes or breaks all of the cases, because if there’s no connection between the two, there’s no case, right?
You can be disabled, and you can be terminated, and that’s fine as long as you’re not terminated because of your disability. And that’s what we need to prove in a wrongful [00:09:00] termination case. And then number four, we have to be able to prove damages. How were you damaged as a result? Which is why most attorneys will not take employment cases absent a termination, because it’s very difficult then to obtain substantial damages on court.
There’s two components of damages generally. Wages, money that you would have been paid had you not been terminated, and then the emotional distress component, which could vary depending on, how traumatic or how egregious the conduct was. But without the wage component and absent any severe egregious conduct that could shock the conscience of the court, most employment attorneys will not take a case without a termination or a or a demotion because w- there wouldn’t be substantial damages.
Porschia: Yeah. Yeah. And as you were saying that, Ilona, it made me think of this case that I read about a couple of weeks ago. You might have heard about it as well because when you’re talking about damages, it’s slightly different than [00:10:00] the wages, but probably more on the emotional distress side. Did you hear about the case with the woman who sued her employer, and I think she got $10 to $12 million because she was pregnant, she was a high-risk pregnancy- and she had asked to work remote while- … she was pregnant. They denied her request. She went in to the office, and then she lost the baby. And yeah she just won that case against her employer for not granting that, that c- for-
Ilona: Accommodation …
Porschia: accommodation, yes.
Accommodation, yeah. For not gra- Yeah … not granting that accommodation to her. So I guess that would fall into emotional distress side
Ilona: of things or- It would fall in emotional distress, and I’m assuming that she… I- I’m not familiar with that case, but she must have been able to prove that the loss of the baby had something to do with her return to work to get these types of damages.
And so usually, you don’t get a large amount awarded for emotional distress unless there is some kind of a physical manifestation of the [00:11:00] emotional distress. In this case, there was loss of a baby, s- in some cases, it could be the need for psychological or psychiatric treatment or the need to take anxiety medication or antidepressants or maybe having panic attacks, something like that.
Porschia: Yeah. So why do you think many people have trouble determining the difference between a worker grievance and a strong employment law case?
Ilona: Because they’re both have a fairness component to them, so people automatically think, “Okay, if it’s not fair, it must be illegal”, but not everything that’s not fair is necessarily illegal, right?
If you have a boss that yells at you every day, that’s not illegal. It’s not illegal to yell at your employees. It may be unprofessional, it may be a good, bad business practice, but it’s not illegal, right? But then the, the nuance to that is is the employee, is the boss yelling at everybody, or is the boss only yelling [00:12:00] at Black people or pregnant women or et cetera?
W- th- this is why it’s so important to talk to an employment attorney. I have to say that as an employment attorney, I decline probably 90 to 95% of potential clients that come to me specifically because it turns out they only have a workplace grievance, and maybe their feelings got hurt, but they don’t have an actual employment case, right?
Their rights were not violated. But then there’s also those people that assume that they don’t have a case, and they actually have rights that have been violated. So my recommendation is always talk to an attorney early on. Even if it’s nothing, at least you get that peace of mind in knowing that you did not miss an opportunity to have a viable and potentially valuable case and defend your rights, right?
Because your rights mean nothing if you don’t enforce them. The, those laws exist to h- give workers an ability to get compensation for when they were treated illegally, unfairly, and illegally. So [00:13:00] always talk to an attorney, but also understand that ma- in many situations, it’s more of a situation that does not necessarily rise to the level of an employment case.
I’ll give you another example. Sometimes I would have somebody call me and say “I don’t… I have been terminated,” right? And I would ask them, “Why do you think…” I always ask my clients, “Why do you think you have been,” or potential clients, “Why do you think you have been terminated?” And if they tell me, “I think it’s because I’m disabled.
I think it’s because of my age. I think it’s because,” because people intuitively feel discrimination. It’s always the starting point to dive deeper. But if they say I really don’t know. I think they just didn’t like me,” that’s gonna be a case that’s gonna be very difficult to prove in court.
Because if the plaintiff himself or herself does not even feel that they were necessarily discriminated because of a protected characteristic, and they were just not liked, or maybe they wanted to be replaced by [00:14:00] the boss’s cousin, who was, like, about, trying to get the position, et cetera then it would be very difficult to persuade the jury, right?
Because the challenge with employment discrimination cases is that you’re trying to prove somebody’s state of mind. You’re trying to prove that the adverse employment action was taken against this employer because of their disability, because of their race, because of their gender, in 99% of the cases, you’re going to have to put the case to p- case together piece by piece like a puzzle, you’re not gonna have that email, that memo saying, “Okay, she is Hispanic, we’re going to get rid of her.” That doesn’t… maybe sometimes it exists. Maybe other attorneys are lucky enough to have cases like that. But most of the time you’re not gonna exist it. Be- before taking on a case, an attorney always needs to evaluate, while they may intuitively feel that they’ve been wronged and possibly they were, but is this really winnable case, is there enough circumstantial evidence for us to be able to tell the [00:15:00] story to the judge and the jury to be able to survive, summary judgment and get a favorable result at the end?
Porschia: Yeah. I love what you said about not everything that is unfair is illegal, and I think that is a big challenge for people because they’re feeling wronged or, they, in some way and just lean towards wanting to consult an attorney.
And so I think you started going down this path but I wanna dig in a little deeper. What are some examples that we might see in the workplace that let us know something is a potential case that should be discussed with an attorney?
Ilona: Yeah. So something that is, that’s a potential case is- And let’s break it into the two buckets again, because they’re both equally important, right?
If we’re in the wage and hour world and somebody’s not, somebody is not being paid their proper wages, it would be somebody who is [00:16:00] an employee and gets properly classified as an hourly employee, and works overtime, meaning over 40 hours a week, and does not get paid time and a half for every hour worked in excess of 40.
They need to talk to an employment attorney right away. Also, if it’s somebody who’s not getting paid at the prevailing minimum wage rate, they need to talk to an attorney right away. And then there’s cases that are a little bit more ambiguous in the wage and hour sphere, because a lot of companies like to classify workers as independent contractors because it makes things easier.
You don’t have to, do all of the tax reporting, this and that. And sometimes for one reason or another, em- the worker agrees to that. Maybe it’s easier for the worker as well. But then the worker finds themselves in a situation to where they still have to report to work every day, they wear a uniform, they’re fully controlled in terms of when they show up, how much they work.
There’s really no independence in [00:17:00] that independent contractor relationship. They’re just a misclassified employee. On top of that, they’re working over 40 hours a week, and they’re not getting paid any overtime, and then they raise the issue with the employer, and the employer says no, but you agreed to this arrangement.”
From the standpoint of the law, that agreement means nothing, because the courts look at the economic realities of the relationship. It doesn’t matter that the employee agreed, it doesn’t matter if the employee signed a contract, it doesn’t matter if the employer is sending a 1099. Like, all of those formalities of the relationship don’t matter.
What matters is the actual economic reality. Is the employee treated, is the worker being treated as an employee? And there’s a six-prong test, and it’s, it’s a nuanced test, so which is why you should speak to an attorney. Or anybody finding themselves in that situation should speak to an attorney.
[00:18:00] [00:19:00] But if the application of the test weighs in favor of finding that the person is more likely an employee rather than independent contractor, then that’s what the courts will look at. And that allows somebody then to reclaim their unpaid wages that they have not been paid as a result of being misclassified.
And then another scenario is Somebody being classified as an exempt manager, let’s say and then they’re working over 40 hours a week without compensation. If somebody’s truly exempt then yes, they’re a s- a salary, they’re in a salaried position, and they’re not entitled to overtime. But they truly have to have managerial duties or administrative duties or executive duties such as being able to [00:20:00] supervise the work of two, two or more employees and have an influence over decisions of importance for the company, and there’s other criterias established by the Department of Labor.
But when you have a store clerk on whom you slap the title of a manager, but 90% of their time is spent stocking shelves and mopping floors, and they’re working 60 hours a week, that’s not legal. That’s not okay, and so they need to talk to an attorney. So that’s the wage and hour world. And then for the employment discrimination world again if somebody feels that they are being treated differently than others as a result of their race, national origin, age, over the age of 40 pregnancy, military status, sexual orientation, disability, or because they engaged in some protected conduct such as taking FMLA leave, which requires the employer to return you when you come back to the same or equivalent position with the same pay rate.[00:21:00]
So if you come back from your FMLA leave and they say, “Oh, we’ve eliminated your job,” that’s FMLA retaliation, and you need to talk to an attorney. Or if you’ve complained about your unpaid wages and you’ve been terminated after that, that’s likely retaliatory. But the key is being treated di- treated differently than people who do not possess that characteristic, protected characteristic or who have not engaged in that protected conduct.
When somebody comes to me and says, my, my boss is always yelling at me, and they’re rude, and they’re screaming, and they’re calling me names”, and I say why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because you’re a woman? Do you think it’s because you’re disabled?” They’re like, “Oh no.
They yell at everybody. Every single person is treated that way.” You have an asshole boss, and it’s awful, and I’m so sorry you’re going through that, and you should probably look for a different job, that’s gonna be better environment. But it’s not illegal.
Porschia: You said so many different scenarios that I hear our clients talk about, and I’m really happy that you [00:22:00] touched on the FMLA retaliation. I don’t think we’ve- … talked about that on this show, but that is definitely something that happens a lot. So from your point of view, what preparation should someone do before consulting an attorney about a potential case?
Ilona: So this is where I always get very Marie Kondo with my clients. And it’s all about being organized. Take notes as you go and document everything. Keep journal, keep screenshots. Memory fades, but screenshots don’t. And if you’re terminated, you may lose access to, your account or your device, et cetera.
But if you ta- if you’ve documented things and taken those screenshots, yes, you… even if you don’t have evidence, don’t have evidence, that information can still be subpoenaed, et cetera. But we all know that sometimes not everything’s produced in discovery and things are tampered with. So keep, keep track of things, who said when and what.
But [00:23:00] also, actually go to HR and report things, and do that in writing. Because that’s what the HR department is for, and it benefits… Not only does it benefit your case, because, s- sometimes clients say what should I do to make my case stronger?” But the real question is, what should I make my situ- do to make my situation better, right?
Because a lot of things can be resolved without necessarily escalating it to a lawsuit. And sometimes proper reporting to the HR department, and hopefully they engage in the required interactive process and do proper, examination, some issues can be resolved right away. And if you don’t report things to HR, it will make your case actually much more difficult to prove because the the employer will claim that they were not on notice of what you were, what was going on with you.
Like for example, if a colleague is sexually harassing you And you don’t report it to HR, you can’t hold the company [00:24:00] liable for putting you in a situation when you’ve been sexually harassed when they are not aware of it and you’ve not given them an opportunity to fix the situation. But if you go to HR and they engage in the interactive process, and they do their investigation, and they don’t do anything about it, and the coworker continues to sexually harass you, that’s when you, that’s when you have a case.
Because then they failed that, they failed that duty to keep you, to create t- to have an environment free of harassment and discrimination.
Porschia: Yeah. You made me think of something else, Ilona, that has come up with some clients before and I’m sure you’ve seen this. A lot of companies now in their employment agreement, they might have an arbitration clause or some kind of arbitration agreement that says something along the lines of, “You can’t, sue us.
It has to go through arbitration.” And I’ve had some clients really be turned off by that [00:25:00] and, wonder oh, does this cl- does this company get lots of lawsuits, or did they have some in the past? And feel uncomfortable about that. So if someone has signed some kind of employment agreement that had an arbitration clause in it and then they think they have a strong employment law case, how does that affect things?
Ilona: Ideally, you want to be able to, ideally, you want to be able to go to court and tell your story in front of a jury if something happens. But you can still get justice in arbitration. I’ve arbitrated I’ve taken multiple cases to arbitration and, my colleagues at my firm with successful outcomes.
If you have an ability to negotiate, because n- not every, realistically, right? Like with, say, oh, read the contract, then negotiate. But the, there’s different power dynamics. A Walma- Walmart worker probably is not gonna go back and push back on the arbitration provisions and these and that provisions, w- versus a high-level executive will, right?
So if your relationship with [00:26:00] your prospective employer and the power dynamic is such that you are in a position to negotiate, ideally you don’t want to waive your rights to a jury trial, right? But, if you have to go out arbitration, it’s not it’s not a it’s still an option.
You can still get justice in arbitration. But then there’s, since you brought up agreements, there’s I have so many situations when high level executive, for example, comes, come back, come to me and say, “Okay, I want to leave my employment, and I just now read the employment agreement that I signed five years ago, and I realized that I have this non-compete that doesn’t allow me to work for anybody in the same industry for the next two years in the state of Florida.
Oh, and by the way, this whole time I thought I would be entitled to a severance because they’re really pushing me out they want me out, right? And so I said, ‘Okay, I’ll leave if you give me a severance,’ and they’re basically saying they’re not gonna give me a severance. Aren’t they required to?” And, [00:27:00] w- the non-competes are definitely something that you can and should negotiate, because that makes it very challenging for a lot of people to continue employment in their related industry without, changing industries altogether.
So make sure before going into your arrangement with your employer that you fully understand the consequences and repercussions of the non-compete agreement. And a severance is something that comes up all the time. Severance is something that is not required by law, and a lot of people don’t understand that.
Severance is purely a matter of contract. So when your employer offers you a severance, it’s usually either because it was part of the initial contract that you signed that required it. So ideally, you would negotiate it up front at the start of the employment relationship that if you get pushed out or if, if you leave, that they pay you a severance.
Or if your employer feels that maybe they’re worried that you might sue them, right? And so they’re offering you a [00:28:00] severance in exchange for general release so that you’re relinquishing your rights. So severance is not a gift or a freebie, it’s either a contractual obligation or it’s a CYA for the employer.
Porschia: Yeah. Absolutely. So from your perspective, Ilona, what are some of the biggest challenges you’ve seen executives and professionals have when working with attorneys on their employment law cases?
Ilona: I think when they come to speak to an attorney after the issue has already arisen, because so many issues are preventable.
If you’re contemplating a new job and you’re given an employment agreement to sign, you have every right to have an attorney review that employment agreement. And, I know nowadays… I think people fall into two camps. Some people just sign without even reading, right?
And other people say I don’t wanna pay a lawyer. I’m just gonna feed it into ChatGPT and then, find out what it says.” Obviously, [00:29:00] second option is a little bit better than the first option, because you know- want to know what’s there. But I can tell you as a lawyer who does use AI, that AI makes so many mistakes, and it’s not a replacement for a trained lawyer.
It’s a great efficiency tool. It can help you come up maybe with the right wording, but it gets things wrong all the time when it comes to legal concepts and precedents and interpretation of the laws, or realistic assessment of what a violation means or how to address it. Ideally, talk to an attorney before you sign that contract, and have an attorney review that contract.
And then the other thing is, for an employee that is that finds themselves in a in a situation … Okay, two scenarios. Somebody who is on the verge of quitting, because sometimes people come to me and say, I couldn’t take anymore, so I just quit.” The moment you quit, it makes your case more difficult because [00:30:00] you haven’t been terminated.
There’s no adverse employment action. And yes, in some cases, we may argue constructive termination, which means that the circumstances were so bad that you had no choice but to quit, because no reasonable person would continue to work under those circumstances. But, it’s not always easy to prove.
So of course, I’m not saying suffer through it and stay and wait to get fired. No, but at least talk to an attorney to see how likely are you to have a case depending on the circumstances so you, you’re not potentially, giving away rights that, could result in a profitable case for you down the road.
So talk to an attorney early. And then I would say number three mistake that employees always frequently make is blowing deadlines For example, when somebody has been wrongfully terminated, there is an administrative prerequisite before we can file a lawsuit in court, and it’s filing a charge of [00:31:00] discrimination with the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity provision.
In Florida, employees have 300 days from the date of the discrimina- discriminatory act to file with the EEOC. If you don’t file within the 300 days, you forever relinquish your rights, no matter how good your case is. You may have a billion-dollar case, and you can do nothing about it if you blow that deadline.
So again, don’t wait too long. I occasionally, f- l- fortunately not very often, but, maybe at least couple times a month, I have somebody calling me about a case that looks like a good case, and when I look at the timeline, the EEOC deadline has passed, months ago. And then when I ask them, “Why haven’t you contacted a lawyer sooner?”
They say I didn’t really think I had a case, and then somebody said I should do something about it,” or, “I was too emotionally distraught. I was didn’t wanna deal with it, and now I’m finally in a place where I can deal with it.” But now it’s too late, so don’t wait.
Porschia: Yeah. You said so many great things [00:32:00] there.
I wanna piggyback on something you were talking about earlier that I see as a mistake, and it’s very hard because you worded this really well. It has to do with a lot of the power dynamics, but feeling like they can’t do anything about it. Like- … I will see candidates es- especially if they’re not an executive, and in this job market that’s highly competitive, there’s so many people competing for the job, they feel like, “Oh my gosh, I just have to sign this arbitration agreement or this employment agreement with this crazy arbitration clause in it,” because they feel if I don’t sign it or if I ask any questions, they’re just gonna move on and hire the next person because, I know they’re interviewing five other people right now who are finalists, right?
And they don’t necessarily talk to an attorney- … at that point, and they feel like they would rock the boat, and create some kind of discord, with the company. So yeah, thank you for sharing those things. So tell us a little bit more about your firm.
Ilona: [00:33:00] So I am my firm is called Carpe Diem Law Firm, and I specialize in two practice areas.
One is, as employment law, and I actually handle employment law both for on the employer side and the employee side which I think makes me a well-rounded attorney and an asset to both sides because at any given time I always know what the other side is thinking because I’ve been there. And the i- it’s interesting because, w- oftentimes we tend to live in silos, and those employment attorneys who only do plaintiffs work, employee-side work, they think they’re the good guys, and the employee is always right, and the employers are these big bad guys who are out to screw employees.
And then in the defense bar community, they always think they’re the good guys, and the employees are the incompetent thieves, who are, like, trying to get a quick buck by, trying to blackmail employer into paying them wages while these, they’re. And the reality is that, it’s both [00:34:00] and it’s neither, right?
There’s g- guys and bad guys on both sides. And when I Choose who to repres- n-not who to represent between employer and employee, but which case to accept, right? I always look at is the client credible? Do I want to help them? Do I want to go to bat for them and be their advocate? And sometimes I feel very strongly about the employee rights cases, and sometimes I feel very strongly about the employer cases, and I accept the cases that I feel strongly about.
So there’s no universally good or bad guys, absolutely. And then my other practice area is tra- intellectual property primarily trademarks. So I help entrepreneurs, which means both business owners and solopreneurs, protect their brands through federal trademark registration, and that’s something that’s so frequently overlooked by entrepreneurs, especially solopreneurs.
Because they use… they think intellectual property protection is for the big guys, for the big firms, i’m just a solo guys trying… a solo person trying to [00:35:00] sell my service and trying to sell my product.” But the reality is that if you are selling a product or a service, you are in business, that means you have a brand that needs to be protected.
Whether it’s your slogan, your logo, your brand name, your product name, your service name it’s all intellectual property, and it all can be licensed and sold and assigned. It also can get you in a lot of trouble if somebody either infringes upon your brand or if you inadvertently infringe upon somebody else’s brand because you didn’t have an attorney conduct a comprehensive clearance search and, properly protect your brand.
So that’s what I do.
Porschia: Love it. We’ll be providing a link to your website and social channels in our show notes so people can find you online. But now, Ilona, I wanna ask you the final question that we ask all of our guests. How do you think executives or professionals can get a positive edge in their career?
Ilona: It’s a really good question, [00:36:00] and I think, I, obviously as a lawyer and, for a hammer, everything is a nail. So I’ll offer I’ll offer a legal perspective, although there’s, so many, including mind- having the right mindset and having the, the right approach, et cetera.
But from the legal perspective is it’s really understanding fully what you’re getting into. It’s employment is like marriage and i- initially everybody’s excited and, you’re coming on board, we’re gonna wanna make you happy, and there’s like this honeymoon period, and there’s this excitement and sometimes people don’t refuse to see the red flags.
And this is what I’ve already talked about, not reading the employment agreement, not advocating for yourself, not trying to, negotiate the out of the arbitration agreement so you don’t waive your rights to jury trial. Not trying to eliminate or at least narrow the scope of the non-compete so that if things don’t work out, your career is not ruined for the next two years because you can’t [00:37:00] work for somebody else.
Trying to negotiate ahead of time some kind of severance provision if things don’t work out so that, you could be s- you could be set for a few months while you’re looking for a new job because, again it’s purely contract- contractual and not a legal requirement.
Knowledge is power, and understanding what you’re getting into, I think gives you, it not only advantage, but to be honest, when an employee shows themselves as somebody who’s diligent and full because a lot of employees, like you mentioned are afraid of of overstepping their boundaries and what if the offer is getting rescinded.
But from the standpoint of a, like a good employer, the company you wanna work with, right? Wouldn’t you be impressed with an employee who is actually taking the time to fully understand what they’re stepping into, advocate for themselves, where… ’cause there’s, there are different ways to approach things, [00:38:00] right?
You can approach things in a very confrontational, adversarial way, or you can approach it in a very, nice but you setting your boundaries and you letting them know that you want to make sure you understand what, yeah, what you’re stepping into and also what the company’s expectations are and what the policies, what the procedures.
Because you can’t really be successful without clarity, right? You can’t operate in a vacuum. You’re operating within certain parameters and you need to understand what they are. And I think it creates respect from the beginning between the, from the s- standpoint of the employer when the employee asks those questions and advocates for themselves.
I think it’s a good thing, and I think it can be very well received.
Porschia: Agreed. Ilona, you have shared a lot of insights with us today, and I’m sure our listeners can use it to be more confident in their careers. We appreciate you being with us.
Ilona: Thank you so much. It’s been fun. [00:39:00]
