John E. Bucheit

Principal

John Bucheit is a co-founder and principal of Roeser Bucheit & Graham. John has extensive experience litigating complex commercial and business-related matters in state and federal courts throughout the country, representing clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to small and mid-sized businesses, individuals, professional associations, and large law firms.

John’s substantive experience includes representing clients in labor and employment-related matters arising under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and National Labor Relations Act. He also has extensive experience representing clients in insurance coverage litigation, class action litigation, copyright disputes, breach of contract actions, anti-trust litigation, disputes over non-competition agreements, and defense of legal malpractice claims.

Education
Drake University B.A., summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1995
University of Iowa College of Law J.D., Order of the Coif, Top 10%, 1998

Practice Areas
Complex Commercial and Business Litigation
Employment Litigation and Consulting
Appeals
Insurance Coverage Litigation

Prior Experience
Grippo & Elden, LLC. Principal 2006-2010; Associate 2001-2005
Winston & Strawn. Associate, 1998-2001

Bar Admissions
State of Illinois
United States Supreme Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Representative Cases

  • Trial counsel for Fortune 100 client in on-line marketing litigation in the U.S. District Court of Maryland, in which RBG obtained a jury verdict in client’s favor following a two-week jury trial. Brand Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 972 F. Supp.2d 748 (D. Md. 2013).
  • Obtained Summary Judgement and award of attorneys’ fees against EEOC on behalf of minority-owned janitorial services and management consulting companies in EEOC enforcement action alleging national origin discrimination on behalf of class of current and former employees. EEOC v. RJB Properties, Inc., et al., 847 F. Supp.2d 727 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
  • Trial counsel in New York state court class-action litigation pertaining to purported “non-products” coverage for asbestos-related exposure alleged to be in excess of $1 billion. Obtained declaratory judgment following three month bench trial of no coverage in client’s favor. Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau et al., 871 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2008). Opponents and the press have described this as a “landmark” decision on the “non-products” issue.
  • Represented global law firm in an EEOC enforcement action alleging age-discrimination on behalf of a class of former partners (settled prior to trial).
  • Represented minority-owned janitorial services and management consulting companies in EEOC enforcement action alleging national origin discrimination on behalf of class of current and former employees (case pending).
  • Defended international manufacturing company in EEOC enforcement action alleging sex discrimination on behalf of a class of pregnant employees, obtaining favorable settlement on client’s behalf.
  • Obtained summary judgement in favor of client on Title VII race discrimination and harassment claim. Blakely v. Brach & Brock Confections Inc., 191 F. Supp. 943 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of client on ERISA claim claiming breach of alleged severance plan. Welles v. Brack & Brock Confections, Inc., 2001 WL 823887 (7th Cir. July 18, 2001).
  • Represented client on appeal from order dismissing ERISA claim relating to retirement contributions, obtaining in client’s favor affirmance of dismissal. Mein v. Carus Corp., 241 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2001).
  • Represented insurer in California mass tort insurance coverage case involving thousands of alleged claimants. See Employers Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, 161 Cal. App. 4th 906, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733 (2d Dist. 2008) (ruling in client’s favor as a matter of first impression under California law that course of performance evidence is relevant to interpretation of insurance contracts).
  • Obtained on behalf of national law firm summary judgment with respect to legal malpractice claim based on argument of first impression. See Inductametals Corp. v. Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC, 2004 WL 783129 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2004).
  • Counsel for internet media delivery provider in successful defense of several consumer class-actions relating to online-subscription service. See, e.g., Koresko v. RealNetworks, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (dismissing case pursuant to end-user license agreement forum selection clause). Successfully represented client in two similar cases filed in State of Washington.
  • Represented players’ association in labor arbitration over performance criteria used in salary arbitrations, obtaining in client’s favor arbitration award based on argument of first impression. Represented same client in anti-trust suit against Canadian developmental league. See NHLPA v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, et al., 325 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2003).
  • Represented global risk management and insurance brokerage firm in litigation against competitor involving breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements and unfair business practices claims.
  • Successfully represented global web-press and print finishing manufacturer in defense of several labor and employment matters.
  • Successfully represented manufacturer and distributor of novelty items in several copyright disputes, obtaining preliminary injunctive relief against further violations and favorable settlement of the dispute.
  • Represented same client in anti-trust suit against a Canadian developmental league. See NHLPA v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, et al., 325 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2003).