Jonathan W. Garlough

Partner

Overview

Jonathan Garlough is partner and a litigation lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. Mr. Garlough has extensive experience with class action litigation, and has advised and assisted clients in numerous labor and employment, RICO, environmental, intellectual property, securities fraud, mortgage fraud, and breach of contract disputes. He is a member of the Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice.

Representative Experience

  • Successfully petitioning the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for rehearing en banc and obtaining dismissal of a request for injunctive relief pursuant to the federal Tax Injunction Act.
  • Represented wide range of participants in health care industry, including PBMs, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers, and billing and coding specialists, in litigation and arbitration throughout the United States.
  • Secured seminal ruling from federal court that state prompt pay law did not apply to third-party payor. 
  • Securing dismissal in a series of class action multi-state lawsuits filed in California, Arizona, and Nevada federal courts challenging foundational components of the secondary mortgage market.
  • Obtaining summary judgment in Illinois state and federal courts on wage and hour claims involving donning and doffing of work clothing and equipment.

Mr. Garlough has also advised clients in connection with white collar defense and government investigations involving Anti-Kickback, Stark Act and other claims of fraud, and has conducted internal investigations concerning alleged violations of state and federal laws.

Mr. Garlough has appeared in state and federal courts in Illinois, Arizona, California, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. He has represented clients in the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

Mr. Garlough has also made a significant commitment to pro bono work. Mr. Garlough has argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Department of Justice’s Immigration Court in Chicago, and represented a public university before the Seventh Circuit in a complex First Amendment challenge to the University’s distribution of student activity funding.

Prior to joining Foley, Mr. Garlough was a judicial clerk for the Hon. Richard A. Griffin in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where he performed research and provided consultation for criminal and civil appeals. Mr. Garlough has also worked as a judicial clerk for the Hon. Tu M. Pham, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Tennessee.

Recognition

Mr. Garlough has been selected for inclusion in the 2014 - 2016 Illinois Super Lawyers–Rising Stars® Editions.*

Publications

Mr. Garlough is a contributor to the Chicago Law Bulletin, InsideCounsel, the annual employment law treatise, The Law Guide – Employee Relations Law for Illinois Employers, published by MRA – The Management Association, Inc., and the 2009 update of the practice treatise Secured Transactions, published by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education. In addition, Mr. Garlough is the author of "Weighing in on the Wine Wars: What the European Union Can Teach Us About the Direct Shipment Controversy," 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev 1533 (2005) and co-author of “SEC Modifies Settlement Language For Cases Involving Criminal Convictions,” Financier Worldwide Magazine (July 2012).

Education

Mr. Garlough graduated from William and Mary School of Law (J.D., 2005), where he served as articles editor of the William and Mary Law Review and was named a Benjamin Rush Scholar for his scholarship in health care law. He earned his B.A., with distinction, from the University of Michigan (2002).

Admissions

Mr. Garlough is admitted to practice in Illinois and Indiana.

*The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law and no award or recognition is a requirement to practice law in Illinois.

Representative Matters

Showing of
International food manufacturer was sued by a group of named plaintiffs who purported to bring a wage and hour class action under Illinois State Law for allegedly unpaid work time associated with donning, doffing, walking and meeting time. Foley successfully defended the lawsuit, and secured summary judgment before the Illinois Circuit Court for Champaign County on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, where Foley successfully defended the award of summary judgment below after briefing and oral argument before the IL 4th District Appellate Court (sitting in Springfield) (the Court of Appeals issued its decision in December, 2012). Plaintiffs then petitioned the IL Supreme Court for further review. Foley successfully opposed the Petition for further review, and the Supreme Court denied the Petition in March, 2013.
Represented international food manufacturer in a purported class and collective wage and hour action. Plaintiffs allege that defendant has violated state (Illinois) and federal wage and hour law as it relates to compensation for time spent "donning" and "doffing" work-related clothing and personal protective equiptment at the beginning and end of the work day. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendant has failed to pay for all "work time" experienced by the plaintiffs during their 30-minute unpaid meal breaks. Successfully resolved claim with a fairly early settlement on terms that were very favorable to the Defendants.
Foley recently secured a favorable settlement for client PL Capital LLC in a case involving issues of first impression filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. PL Capital, an activist hedgefund that focuses its investments in publicly traded banks and thrifts, began investing in Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. in February 2012. When Orrstown’s board of directors discovered that PL Capital had amassed 5% of Orrstown stock, the board amended its bylaws to render ineligible for service on Orrstown’s board anyone who (a) lived more than 50 miles away from Orrstown’s Shippensburg (PA) headquarters or (b) sat on the board of directors for another bank. Both amendments were designed to prevent PL Capital’s principals from obtaining a seat on the Orrstown board of directors. After the board refused to withdraw its bylaw amendments following discussions with PL Capital and Goldberg, Foley worked through the New Year’s holiday to prepare and file a complaint (brought both directly and derivatively on behalf of the bank) and motion for preliminary injunction, seeking the enjoinment of the two prejudicial bylaws and to preserve PL Capital’s ability to place one or more of its principals on the Orrstown board. The complaint and motion relied on a theory of shareholder disenfranchisement that, while accepted by Delaware courts and elsewhere, had not yet been adopted by a published Pennsylvania court under Pennsylvania’s shareholder-unfriendly Business Corporations Law. On January 11, 2013, the court held an initial status conference on PL Capital’s motion, granting PL Capital’s request for expedited discovery and setting a February 25 trial date. PL Capital’s complaint against Orrstown had received significant attention from local and trade media, and the expedited trial date escalated the pressure on the board to rescind the bylaws. Little more than two weeks later, the board agreed to withdraw the offending bylaws, promise not to enact any further “shareholder unfriendly” changes to the bylaws, and pay all of PL Capital’s legal fees – everything (and more) that PL Capital sought in its preliminary injunction motion.