Person Photo
Person Photo

Bradley Cave

Partner

2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450, Cheyenne, WY 82001

Brad Cave partners with employers to find the right solutions for their day-to-day legal issues arising from employment relationships.

When his clients’ decisions are challenged, he defends employers and managers in court, before state and federal agencies, and in arbitration and mediation.

Brad works with family businesses, non-profit organizations, large and small companies, and public entities in the healthcare, human services, education, mining, oil and gas, and construction industries on a wide array of employment compliance matters and disputes.

A believer in the value of training, Brad enjoys leading training sessions for employers, managers, and supervisors in areas such as investigations, discipline and termination, harassment, discrimination, disability accommodation and leave management, and supervisory responsibilities.

show more

Experience

Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation Investigation and Defense
Accommodations, Disabilities, Leave Management
Employment Litigation and Class Actions
  • Breach of Contract
  • Employment-related torts
  • Defamation and Free Speech
  • Non-Compete and Trade Secrets
  • Wrongful Discharge
HR Counseling, Compliance, and Risk Management
  • Drug and alcohol testing policies and procedures
  • Employment contracts
  • Employment policies, handbooks, and manuals
  • Executive compensation and employment contracts
  • Hiring, discipline, performance evaluations, and terminations
  • Investigations and audits
  • Wage and Hour, Equal Pay, compensation, and benefits

Client Results

Employment Litigation
  • Discrimination
    • Our client, a public hospital, was sued by an orthopedic surgeon for gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause based on the hospital’s purchase of a competing orthopedic practice owned by male surgeons. Brad persuaded the district court to dismiss the surgeon’s claim prior to discovery, and successfully defended an appeal to the Tenth Circuit which affirmed the dismissal, finding the surgeon had failed to plead a viable claim of gender discrimination and the individual hospital board members had qualified immunity. Morman v. Campbell County Memorial Hospital, 632 Fed.Appx. 927 (10th Cir. 2015).
    • In one of the first age discrimination opinions issued by the circuit courts of appeal after the United States Supreme Court found that disparate impact claims were recognized under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Brad successfully defended a summary judgment ruling in favor of the employer on appeal to the Tenth Circuit involving an employee alleging age discrimination after he was laid off. Pippin v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, 440 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2005).
    Covenant-Not-To-Compete Enforcement
    • Brad recently represented a national company in an action against one of its former sales executives who started a competing enterprise, and began soliciting our client’s customers. He persuaded the federal court to enter a preliminary injunction against the former employee and his new business. Then, he negotiated a settlement requiring the former employee to pay a portion of our client’s attorneys’ fees and consent to an injunction for twice the duration of the court’s original injunction. 
    Negotiation and Resolution of High-Risk Claims
    • In three recent matters, Brad negotiated the resolution of a variety of claims asserted by former senior executives. Each matter involved motivated opposing counsel, highly-compensated executives with a grudge, and allegations of retaliation, illegality, or other malfeasance by the client’s other senior officers or board members.
    • After a client’s female vice president became embroiled in a romantic relationship with a direct-report male human resources officer, Brad counseled the client through an independent investigation to determine and implement the appropriate employment actions. He then helped the client to favorably resolve related claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    Wrongful Discharge
    • We defended our client’s decision to discharge an employee who refused to relocate. After the trial court dismissed the former employee’s case, Brad represented the employer on the appeal, successfully defending dismissal of the case at the Tenth Circuit. Tyler v. Tsurumi (America), Inc., 425 Fed.Appx. 702 (10th Cir. 2011).

    Defamation and Privacy Issues
    • Brad advised our client on a particularly sensitive case after the female executive assistant to the CEO quit and filed suit for alleged defamation and emotional distress resulting from rumors circulating throughout the organization, and among the board of directors, that she had an affair with the CEO. Brad deftly managed the case through mediation and achieved a favorable settlement for the exact amount he predicted at the outset of the dispute.
    Breach of Contract
    • Brad defended the City of Gillette against allegations that it breached an implied employment contract when it modified sick and vacation leave policies. Because the plaintiffs did not comply with the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, we convinced the trial court to dismiss the case, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Hochhalter v. City of Gillette, 120 P.3d 674 (Wyo. 2005).
    Workers' Compensation
    • We helped our client successfully challenge a former employee’s workers’ compensation claim for a surgery - authorized by the Wyoming workers’ compensation system - the employer believed was unnecessary. We persuaded the medical commission that the surgery was not justified by medical evidence or the facts surrounding the employee’s injury, and defended that finding through the employee’s appeals to the district court and the Wyoming Supreme Court. Beall v. Sky Blue Enterprises, Inc., 271 P.3d 1022 (Wyo. 2012).  
Commercial Litigation
  • Our client was the general contractor for three large wind farm projects. The civil earthwork subcontractor defaulted on payments to several of its suppliers, and ultimately walked off the projects prior to completion. We defended over a dozen separate lien actions filed against the projects, prosecuted claims, and defended counterclaims in litigation with the civil subcontractor. After a two-week jury trial in October 2011, a verdict in excess of $1 million was returned for our client.

  • Brad represented Wyoming’s elected Secretary of State in a challenge to the constitutionality of Wyoming’s term limit statute for statewide elected officials. After the trial court certified the constitutional question to the Wyoming Supreme Court, Brad handled briefing and oral argument, persuading the Supreme Court to find the statute unconstitutional. Maxfield v. State of Wyoming, 294 P.3d 895 (Wyo. 2013).

News

Publications

Speaking Engagements

Education

Bar Admissions

Court Admissions

Recognition

  • The Best Lawyers in America© Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Management, 2003-2019
  • Benchmark Litigation, Local Litigation Star, 2013-2018
  • Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Labor & Employment, 2005-2018
  • Mountain States Super Lawyers®, "Top 100 Lawyers"
  • Mountain States Super Lawyers®, Employee Litigation: Defense, 2007-2018

Professional and Civic Affiliations

  • Inducted into The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, November 2009 (The College's first Wyoming Member)
  • Employment Law Alliance, Wyoming Member
  • Employers Counsel Network, Wyoming Member
  • American Bar Association, Member
  • Wyoming Bar Association, Member
  • Colorado Bar Association, Member
  • Defense Research Institute, Member
  • Defense Lawyers Association of Wyoming, Member
  • Society of Human Resource Management, Member
DISCLAIMER

Unless you are a current client of Holland & Hart LLP, please do not send any confidential information by email. If you are not a current client and send an email to an individual at Holland & Hart LLP, you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us, unless we have already agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we may represent a party adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in a matter, and even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us.