×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Nyemaster Goode, P.C.Share Holder
Atty. Frances M. Haas

Atty. Frances M. Haas

Not yet reviewed

625 First Street South East, Suite 400, Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-2030

Employment Litigation, Labor & Employment, Litigation and 7 more

About Atty. Frances M. Haas

Atty. Frances M. Haas is a lawyer practicing employment litigation, labor & employment, litigation and 7 other areas of law. Frances received a B.A. degree from University of Northern Iowa in 2001, and has been licensed for 21 years. Frances practices at Nyemaster Goode, P.C. in Cedar Rapids, IA.

Atty. Frances M. Haas (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)

Reviews for Frances

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Appellate Practice
  • Other 8
    • Employment Litigation
    • Labor & Employment
    • Employment, Labor, and Discrimination
    • Administrative Hearings, Arbitrations, and ADR
    • Business and Commercial Litigation
    • Health Care Litigation
    • Personal Injury and Tort Defense
    • Higher Education and Title IX Law

Practice Details

  • Languages
    French
  • Firm Information
    Position
    Shareholder
    Firm Name
    Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Significant Cases: Banks v. John Deere & Co. , Case No. 15-2058 (8th Cir. 2016). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's race discrimination
    harassment claims under Title VII
    the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
    Massey-Diez v. University of Iowa Community Medical Services, Inc. , Case No. 15-2924 (8th Cir. 2016). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's FMLA entitlement
    discrimination/retaliation claims.
    Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc. , 860 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 2015). Obtained favorable answers to two certified questions of law on wage discrimination claims before the Iowa Supreme Court.
    Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, LLC , No. 12-0442 (Iowa 2013). The Iowa Supreme Court held that punitive damages are not available in employment discrimination claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
    Smock v. Muscatine Center for Social Action (Muscatine Cnty. Dist. Ct. of Iowa) . Obtained summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge claim in violation of public policy
    breach of contract.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2008, Iowa
    Admitted to practice in all state, federal courts in Iowa, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
    2005, Wisconsin
    Memberships

    Professional and Community Affiliations

    Iowa State Bar Association
    Federal Practice Committee

    Wisconsin Bar Association

    Linn County Bar Association

    Appointed to the Federal Practice Committee for the Northern District of Iowa, 2013-present

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of Iowa College of Law
    Class of 2004
    J.D.
    with high distinction
    Other Education
    University of Northern Iowa
    Class of 2001
    B.A.
    summa cum laude
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1980
    Davenport, Iowa, 1980

Email Atty. Frances M. Haas

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions