Barbara G. Stephenson, Attorney
Ms. Stephenson has twenty-five years of legal experience and, for the last twelve years has worked exclusively in employment law. Ms. Stephenson has defended several clients in Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP") investigations and reviews, and also has handled a variety of other administrative claims faced by employers. Her practice currently focuses on employment litigation, defending administrative claims, and counseling clients in personnel issues. Since 1995, she has tried several cases on behalf of clients such as CUNA Mutual and Delta Air Lines. Defense verdicts were obtained in all cases. Past successes cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits. Ms. Stephenson also is a frequent lecturer on employment law topics.
Ms. Stephenson has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America in labor and employment since 2001 and, since 2003, as a leading employment defense attorney in Chambers USA America's Leading Lawyers for Business.
|Education:||University of New Mexico B.A.|
|Admissions:||U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit 1985|
New Mexico 1979
U.S. Supreme Court 1988
U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit 1981
U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit 1985
Armijo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America 1995
Carr v. Stryker Corp. 1994
Chapman v. Luna 1984
Gutierrez v. City of Albuquerque 1981
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States 1981
Phifer v. Herbert 1993
Richardson v. Southland Corp. 1994
Listing provided by FindLaw. How to update or change your listing?
|Albuquerque Employment Lawyer|
The Case for Lenity in Adolescent Sentencing
Continuing research and developments in psychology and brain science show that the biological age of maturity is actually closer to 21 or 22, if not older. Yet for legal purposes, including sentencing, society treats people as adults once they reach age 18.
by John Leunig
Riley v. California: Warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest prohibited
The United States Supreme Court ruled that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual incident to arrest.
by John Leunig