Mr. Fitzhugh leads the litigation practice at Fitzhugh & Mariani LLP. He has obtained defense verdicts in jury trials conducted in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. His trial results include defense verdicts in wrongful death cases in three different states, as well as products liability and employment law cases. He has also obtained defense rulings in NASD arbitration cases alleging violations of securities laws. The firm’s senior trial attorney, Mr. Fitzhugh recently won a defense verdict in a workplace safety case named one of five most notable defense wins of the year by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

• Williams College, Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, 1977
• Harvard Law School, Juris Doctor, 1981

• Boston Bar Association
• National Bar Association
• Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association
• Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association
• Federation of Insurance & Corporate Counsel
• Defense Research Institute

• Massachusetts Bar, 1981
• U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
• First Circuit Court of Appeals
• Third Circuit Court of Appeals
• U.S. Supreme Court

• Woghiren v. Wyeth and Wyeth Biopharma
• Pelletier v. Main Street Textiles, et al.
  See the official Trial Report published in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, July 18, 2005
• Johnson v. American Airlines
• Thomas v. Eastman Kodak Company
• Garcia v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
• Nickerson, et al. v. Lombardi Oil Co., et al.
• Cerqueira v. American Airlines, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 104105, C.A.1 (Mass.), January 10, 2008 (NO. 07-1824), the firm obtained a reversal of a $400,000 trial verdict that had been rendered in favor of a plaintiff who was removed from an American Airlines’ flight due to being perceived as a potential security risk, and who subsequently sued the airline for unlawful race and ethnic origin discrimination. Mr. Fitzhugh was AA’s trial counsel in the case, which was the first such action against a commercial airline since 09/11 that was actually submitted to a jury, and the verdict had included an award of punitive damages against American. However, the First Circuit’s opinion rectified what was a terrible precedent, and is considered to be among the most significant for the industry on this issue of an airline’s discretion to enforce its security measures. The decision can be read under the “Reported Cases” link of our website.
• Tata v. London International
• Buck v. American Eagle Airlines

• Nunez v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al.
• Goldstein v. John Hancock Financial Services, et al.
• Johnson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al.
• Lano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al.

Reported Cases:

• Watson v. Eastman Kodak Co., 235 F.3d 851 (3rd Cir.2000)
• Durniak v. August Winter & Sons, 222 Conn. 775 (1992)
• Finn v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 622 F.Supp. 41 (D.Mass. 1985), aff'd, 782 F.2d 13 (1st Cir.1986)
• Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Fore River Railway Corp., 861 F.2d 322 (1st Cir.1988)
• Barilaro v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 876 F.2d 260 (1st Cir.1989)
• Brighetti v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 20 Mass.App. Ct. 192 (1985)
• Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Hallamore Motor Transp., Inc., 394 Mass. 56 (1985)
• Cerqueira v. American Airlines, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 104105, C.A.1 (Mass.), January 10, 2008 (NO. 07-1824) (reversing the judgment and order reported at 484 F.Supp.2d 232 (D.Mass. 2007), and the award of attorneys’ fees reported at 484 F.Supp.2d 241 (D.Mass. 2007)).