Source: https://www.balch.com/people/p/pate-kelly-f
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:46:18+00:00

Document:
Kelly Pate has an active and diverse civil litigation practice in Alabama federal and state courts. Kelly has experience successfully representing clients in trial and through appeal. With a practice that covers a wide variety of business and employment matters, Kelly handles litigation and pre-dispute matters ranging from employment and business disputes, to constitutional and administrative challenges. Kelly regularly advises private businesses, governmental entities, and higher education institutions. In addition, in Kelly's practice she develops policies, provides training, handles EEOC related matters, and counsels on diversity and inclusion initiatives. She works with businesses and higher education institutions through internal complaint, investigation, and grievance processes. Kelly regularly represents clients in the federal courts in Alabama, most often in the Middle District, and her practice also requires appearances for clients in Alabama's circuit courts.
I work with private sector businesses as well as state and tribal governmental entities. I have worked with clients across different sectors, private and government, and in diverse industries, including automobile, banking, education, healthcare, public utility, manufacturing, and trucking. With respect to employment matters, I represent employers of all sizes.I have worked with clients across a variety of industries, including automobile, banking, education, healthcare, public utility, manufacturing, and trucking. With respect to employment matters, I represent employers of all sizes.
I work often with issues related to managing employees and the risk and opportunities associated with the workforce.
My diverse practice also includes matters involving pre-litigation management of high-stakes disputes among business or governmental entities, personal injury to employees, or those with whom employees have had contact, and compliance with federal regulations and statutory schemes (including discrimination, retaliation, and harassment).
Working with my clients as a business partner in developing a path for resolution is rewarding. Litigation is often the appropriate path to resolve a legal challenge, but I also enjoy working with businesses to explore other appropriate, and sometimes creative, pathways to resolution outside litigation--options guided by practical business judgment to proactively address issues and avoid litigation or resolve it early.
I often work with clients to provide counsel to corporate leadership, human resources professionals, and administrators to analyze converging interests and to manage toxic or difficult employee situations.
My practice involves a great deal of federal litigation. In addition, I often work with governmental agencies.
Successful appeal affirming sovereign immunity defense as to state and federal law challenges. (Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth., 801 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015)).
Successful motion to dismiss in public university student expulsion case. (Cagle v. Rubley, No. 14-cv-04, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 148887 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 20, 2014).
Successful defense in case alleging age and race discrimination. (Davis v. International Paper Co., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (M.D. Ala. 2014)).
Successful motion to dismiss in employment layoff case. (McCray v. Auburn Univ. Montgomery, No. 11-cv-714, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32388 (M.D. Ala., Mar. 12, 2012)).
Successful defense in tenure denial case. (Martin v. Auburn Univ. Montgomery, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Ala. 2012)).
Successful defense in public university case alleging student's dismissal violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (Heenan v. Rhodes, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (M.D. Ala. 2011)).
Successful defense of statute challenged as unconstitutional. (Northington v. Ala. Dep't of Conservation & Natural Res., 33 So. 3d 560 (Ala. 2010)).
Successful defense on basis of immunity against efforts to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. (Freemanville Water Sys. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 563 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2009)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.