Changing Law for Unchanging Problems: Employment Law with Wigdor’s Valdi Licul

For two decades, Valdi Licul’s celebrated legal practice has been devoted exclusively to fighting on behalf of those facing discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Workplaces are Licul’s domain, and he’s battled tirelessly for their integrity – protecting critical whistleblowers in cases of fraud in the financial services industry and victims of sexual harassment and assault, age, racial and gender discrimination and more in industries across the board.

As workplaces have changed over the years, laws surrounding workplace discrimination have, as well. Recent shifts that have impacted Licul’s practice include a push for reducing the number of sexual harassment and assault cases going to arbitration via the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA) of 2021, ensuring victims of sexual harassment and assault get their day in court. Then, in 2022, an amendment to New York’s whistleblower law expanded the scope of protected activity and, with an update in November of 2024, increased both the statute of limitations on retaliation claims and penalties for employers who retaliate against whistleblowers.

Yet, while the law has changed, Licul’s clients’ experiences have remained frustratingly similar: “Unfortunately, my clients today face many of the same issues as clients from twenty years ago,” he says. “Conscientious workers trying to root out illegal activity often become targets instead of being rewarded for their courage. Extraordinarily accomplished women are still paid less and inexplicably deemed less deserving, especially when they get pregnant or have families.”

Both the EFAA and the new whistleblower laws were passed after Licul joined his current firm, New York plaintiffs’ employment firm powerhouse Wigdor LLP, which he joined as a partner in 2020. Before coming to Wigdor, Licul spent 17 years at another prominent New York employment firm, meaning his roots in the New York employment law circles run deep.

While his cases run the gamut, Licul currently specializes in advising those who have spoken out about critical wrongdoing within the financial services industry – from defrauding shareholders to misrepresentation of assets – under New York’s whistleblower law, ensuring they are not retaliated against for sharing information vital to shareholders and the public at large. Outside his work with whistleblowers, Licul’s results include taking on textbook publisher McGraw-Hill in an age discrimination and retaliation suit, resulting in a six-figure verdict; and representing a female sports executive in a gender, pregnancy and marital status discrimination case against the New York Mets and its co-owner Jeffrey Wilpon.

Licul has been a member of the Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers since 2020.

Lawdragon: Take us back to the beginning of your career. Is this the type of practice you imagined yourself practicing while in law school?

Valdi Licul: I did not go to law school to practice in any particular area. But as I progressed early in my career, from working in the civil rights arena to clerking, I realized that I wanted to be a litigator prosecuting cases against powerful interests. 

LD: Did you have any mentors who left an impact on your career early on?

VL: There were two mentors who significantly shaped my legal career. The first was Dennis Feld, who was my supervisor early in my career as a legal services attorney. His passion for forcing systemic change to help the less fortunate was awe-inspiring. The second was Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, who hired me as a law clerk when she took the federal bench in the Eastern District of New York. Not only does she have a brilliant legal mind, but her ability to focus on the core issues in a case and navigate the many different personalities involved (as lawyers, we tend to be a stubborn bunch) has stuck with me. 

The passage of NY’s revamped whistleblower law was long overdue. For many years, I had to advise clients that they could be fired for protesting illegal activity and corruption in the financial services industry. Many were dumbfounded – and I could not blame them.

LD: How has your practice changed since the early part of your career?

VL: Unfortunately, my clients today face many of the same issues as clients from twenty years ago. Conscientious workers trying to root out illegal activity often become targets instead of being rewarded for their courage. Extraordinarily accomplished women are still paid less and inexplicably deemed less deserving, especially when they get pregnant or have families. In that sense, the practice has remained the same (and not for the better). The practice of litigation has changed inasmuch as there are far fewer oral arguments than there were in the past. As a junior litigator, and even today, I found it exciting to make my case to a court and be forced to answer difficult questions.

LD: Are there any clients or matters that stand out to you as particularly memorable over your career?

VL: It is typically whatever thorny legal issue I am digging into at the moment. Right now, it is the scope of the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA) – the federal law that rightly bars employers from forcing workers to litigate sexual harassment claims in secret arbitration proceedings. Because the statute is fairly new, there is little appellate authority concerning the statute and a split among the lower courts about what a plaintiff needs to show to trigger the law’s protection. I will be arguing the issue later this year before the 2nd Circuit, which I am very much looking forward to. 

LD: Speaking of changing laws, can you also talk a bit about the recent updates to New York’s whistleblower law?

VL: The passage of NY’s revamped whistleblower law was long overdue. For many years, I had to advise clients that they could be fired for protesting illegal activity and corruption in the financial services industry. Many were dumbfounded – and I could not blame them.

LD: How do you think people view your style as a lawyer?

VL: I hope that others see me as a fierce advocate for my clients, who understands the issues involved and is prepared to litigate the case to its end. Often, plaintiffs’ attorneys are viewed as merely seeking a quick settlement. That could not be further from the truth in my practice. At the same time, I hope opposing counsel see me as approachable and reasonable, where necessary. More often than not, attorneys on opposite sides of a matter must cooperate in moving a litigation forwards. And, contrary to the depictions on TV or in the movies, not every interaction between lawyers ends with a someone hanging up the phone or storming out of room. There is nothing more frustrating (and, frankly, more counterproductive) than attorneys who cannot draw those distinctions.

LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students?

VL: Be curious. Don’t just read blurbs about an important or landmark case. Read the entire case. Understand who the players were, how they became entangled in their legal dispute and what their goals were. You will be surprised how much of that information you retain and how it can help in your future practice advising clients. Also, reading well-written cases is a magnificent way to write persuasively for judges, who will be your ultimate audience.

LD: Finally, when you’re not with clients, are you involved in any pro bono or public interest activities?

VL: Yes. It is one of my favorite things about being a lawyer. I am heavily involved in the Federal Bar Council (FBC), a group that promotes excellence in federal practice. Among the FBC’s most inspiring work is the Access to Counsel Project, which is designed to enhance pro bono representation of civil pro se litigants. We provide resources and training to attorneys who want to do that important work. I am also on the 2nd Circuit’s pro bono panel where I represent pro se litigants in their federal appeals.