Skip to Main Content

Daniel S.
Brookins

  • Partner
Grand Rapids
T 616.752.2599
F 616.752.2500

My admin

By asking thoughtful questions and listening closely to my clients’ goals, I gain a meaningful understanding of what matters most to each client and shape my advice accordingly. Whether the right path forward involves negotiation or litigation, I draw on experience and judgment to advocate decisively and pursue outcomes that best advance my clients’ interests.

Daniel Brookins is a litigator who chairs the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group and advises clients through a wide array of employment disputes in state and federal courts. He focuses his defense-side practice on employment litigation, counseling and representing companies in matters involving discrimination, retaliation, wage and hour compliance and employee benefits disputes under federal and state employment law.

industries

practices

Employment Litigation

  • Represented numerous companies in collective action lawsuits brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  • Represented automative dealership in a benefits dispute; successfully obtained dismissal with prejudice in favor of the company.
  • Represented pharmaceutical company in a retaliation suit brought by former executive; successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the company.
  • Represented agricultural equipment retailer in a discrimination and breach of contract suit brought by a former employee; successfully obtained summary disposition on all claims in favor of the company.
  • Represented public university in a disability discrimination suit brought by a former student; successfully obtain

Employment Litigation

  • Represented numerous companies in collective action lawsuits brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  • Represented automative dealership in a benefits dispute; successfully obtained dismissal with prejudice in favor of the company.
  • Represented pharmaceutical company in a retaliation suit brought by former executive; successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the company.
  • Represented agricultural equipment retailer in a discrimination and breach of contract suit brought by a former employee; successfully obtained summary disposition on all claims in favor of the company.
  • Represented public university in a disability discrimination suit brought by a former student; successfully obtained dismissal in favor of the university.
  • Represented energy company in an ERISA benefits suit; successfully obtained dismissal of the claims against the company.
  • Represented mortgage lender in discrimination suits brought by former employees; successfully obtained multiple orders to dismiss and compel arbitration.
  • Represented manufacturing company in wage and hour dispute; successfully obtained voluntary dismissal on behalf of the company.

Commercial Litigation

  • Represented pool services company in a breach of contract dispute; prevailed, after a week-long jury trial, in defeating all claims brought against company and successfully obtained a half-million-dollar judgment in favor of company.
  • Represented consumer products company in a breach of contract suit; successfully obtained an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the federal suit; successfully defended that order on appeal in the Fourth Circuit.
  • Represented commercial business in Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit; successfully obtained voluntary dismissal on behalf of the company.

Appellate Litigation

  • Lead counsel in a civil rights dispute; argued the case before the Tenth Circuit and obtained reversal of a key lower court ruling in a published Tenth Circuit decision. Hooks v. Atoki, 983 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2020).
  • Co-counsel on multiple employment, property, and other commercial appeals.
  • Co-counsel for multiple amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court.
        • “A Responsible Approach to Safety Regulation in the Automobile Industry,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 83 (2017)
        • “Confusion in the Circuit Courts: How the Circuit Courts Are Solving the Mead-Puzzle by Avoiding It Altogether,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1484 (2017) (cited by Chief Justice Roberts in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 405 n.7 (2024)).
        • “A Responsible Approach to Safety Regulation in the Automobile Industry,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 83 (2017)
        • “Confusion in the Circuit Courts: How the Circuit Courts Are Solving the Mead-Puzzle by Avoiding It Altogether,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1484 (2017) (cited by Chief Justice Roberts in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 405 n.7 (2024)).
        Image for Daniel S. Brookins

        Daniel S.
        Brookins

        • Partner
        Grand Rapids
        T 616.752.2599
        F 616.752.2500

        My admin

        Biography|
        Credentials

        By asking thoughtful questions and listening closely to my clients’ goals, I gain a meaningful understanding of what matters most to each client and shape my advice accordingly. Whether the right path forward involves negotiation or litigation, I draw on experience and judgment to advocate decisively and pursue outcomes that best advance my clients’ interests.

        Daniel Brookins is a litigator who chairs the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group and advises clients through a wide array of employment disputes in state and federal courts. He focuses his defense-side practice on employment litigation, counseling and representing companies in matters involving discrimination, retaliation, wage and hour compliance and employee benefits disputes under federal and state employment law.

        industries

        practices

              • “A Responsible Approach to Safety Regulation in the Automobile Industry,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 83 (2017)
              • “Confusion in the Circuit Courts: How the Circuit Courts Are Solving the Mead-Puzzle by Avoiding It Altogether,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1484 (2017) (cited by Chief Justice Roberts in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 405 n.7 (2024)).
              • “A Responsible Approach to Safety Regulation in the Automobile Industry,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 83 (2017)
              • “Confusion in the Circuit Courts: How the Circuit Courts Are Solving the Mead-Puzzle by Avoiding It Altogether,” 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1484 (2017) (cited by Chief Justice Roberts in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 405 n.7 (2024)).