Christopher M. Pardo

A highly regarded problem-solver, Chris represents businesses and their executives across a broad spectrum of industries, focusing his practice on the defense of complex employment litigation, high-stakes commercial lawsuits and providing timely and thoughtful advice to his clients.

Recognized by the Boston Business Journal as a “40 Under 40” honoree, as a “Top Lawyer Under 40” by the Hispanic National Bar Association, and by Super Lawyers every year since 2013, Chris represents a broad range of corporate clients in federal and state courts, arbitration, and before administrative agencies.

Chris regularly prosecutes and defends business disputes, including in the areas of business torts, breaches of contracts, trade secret litigation and restrictive covenant agreements.

Chris’s practice has an additional focus on employment and and labor matters, particularly in the defense of class and collective actions; wage and hour issues; matters involving race, sex, age, disability, and pregnancy discrimination; wrongful termination; ERISA; RICO; and various state law claims, including wage and discrimination claims under the Massachusetts General Laws.

Chris has represented and advised clients across the country, including in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Vermont.

One of Chris’s recent representations included a trademark infringement lawsuit against the former Cleveland Indians baseball franchise, for which Chris was frequently sought after by major sports media outlets for commentary.

Relevant Experience

• Kova Commercial of Naples, LLC v. Sabin, No. 2:23-CV-614-JES-KCD, 2023 WL 6458845 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2023) (successfully obtained preliminary injunction preventing former employee from soliciting or communicating with client’s current and prospective contacts in violation of federal Defense Trade Secrets Act and Florida Trade Secrets Act).
• Office Depot, Inc. v. Babb, No. 20-CV-80407, 2020 WL 1306984, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2020) (successfully obtaining preliminary injunction preventing former major accounts manager and her subsequent employer from violating the terms of her restrictive covenants agreement).
• Chavira v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, No. 18-CV-10029-ADB, 2019 WL 4769101 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2019) (defeating conditional certification of proposed FLSA class of Outback Steakhouse front-of-the-house managers, premised on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb).
• Chavira v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, No. 18-CV-10029-ADB, 2019 WL 917226, (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2019) (prevailing on motion to dismiss Rule 23 class allegations premised on the Massachusetts Wage Act where the underlying wages due are entirely premised on the FLSA).
• Matthews v. Mount Auburn Hospital, No. 17-1961, 2018 WL 10072318 (Mass. Super. Mar. 12, 2018) (obtaining dismissal with prejudice of claims by former employee that the hospital breached a contract and wrongfully terminated him based upon his refusal to receive a flu vaccination).
• Costello v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., No. 16-10673-GAO, 2016 WL 4186927 (D. Mass. Aug. 8, 2016) (prevailing on fraudulent joinder argument and ultimately obtaining dismissal of the “entirely novel theory” brought under Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law and Massachusetts Wage Act that an “oppressive and unreasonable wage” could be one exceeding the statutorily mandated minimum wage).
• Petersen v. U.S. Airways, Inc., No. SUCV201203737BLS1, 2013 WL 7196329 (Mass. Super. Nov. 19, 2013) (obtaining dismissal of Chapter 93A/consumer protection claims in airline mileage program/breach of contract matter).
• Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D. Mass. 2014), aff'd, 873 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2017) (following the determination of certified questions decided by the Massachusetts SJC, 465 Mass. 607 (2013), and receiving a favorable outcome in the Georgia Court of Appeals, obtaining a favorable ruling, inter alia, defeating the claim that franchisees were allegedly employees of the master franchisor).
• Jones v. Tucker Commc’ns, Inc., No. 5:11-CV-398 MTT, 2013 WL 6072966 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 18, 2013) (obtaining summary judgment ruling in favor of corporate client based on the FLSA’s Section 7(i) overtime exemption).
• Mitchell v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Mass. 2012), aff’d sub nom. Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 720 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013) (obtaining favorable decision for airline client holding that the Airline Deregulation Act preempted skycaps’ claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act and common law claims of tortious interference and unjust enrichment, and dismissal of certain individual plaintiffs’ FLSA claims).
• Bennefield v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., No. CIV.A. 11-00647, 2012 WL 1560407 (Mass. Super. Feb. 17, 2012) (obtaining dismissal with prejudice of race-based hostile work environment claims on behalf of retail client.