Ted North

Associate

Overview

Companies turn to Ted for guidance in navigating complex employment issues such as discrimination claims, investigations, and compliance challenges across the evolving landscape of federal, state, and local laws. From publicly traded companies to start-ups, clients rely on Ted as a trusted advisor.

Prior to joining Crowell and Moring, Ted was an associate with Seyfarth Shaw LLP, where he worked seamlessly across labor, employment, and government contract issues. Representing some of the largest organizations in the nation, Ted handled high-profile litigation matters, sensitive workplace and agency investigations, and provided counseling on critical employment issues.

Before entering private practice, Ted was part of an in-house legal team for a government contractor where he handled a wide array of employment and government contracting issues. Ted used his expertise to create the company’s first program for veteran hiring initiatives, which became a pillar of the company's core values. This experience shapes the way Ted supports clients by tailoring his services as a value add to each organization.

While a student at American University’s Washington College of Law, Ted served in the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, supporting the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. Ted also worked on the National Security Law Brief and the Health Law and Policy Brief. As an undergraduate student, Ted had an internship with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden, NJ, where he worked on matters ranging from intellectual property disputes to criminal trials.

Career & Education

|
    • Virginia Military Institute, 2015
    • American University Washington College of Law, 2021
    • Virginia Military Institute, 2015
    • American University Washington College of Law, 2021
    • District of Columbia
    • District of Columbia

Ted 's Insights

Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.16.24

From the Administrative State to the Wild West? What Employers Should Know About the Shifting Administrative Law Landscape

Over the past several years, federal courts have increasingly questioned the authority of administrative law judges (ALJs) to adjudicate alleged violations of certain labor and employment statutes.  In the last several weeks, two U.S. district courts in Texas issued decisions halting unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that NLRB ALJs lack the constitutional authority to preside over such actions due to unconstitutional protections against their removal.[1]  Similarly, the last year has seen several decisions by courts in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits finding that ALJs, whose decisions are not reviewable by a Presidential appointee, lack constitutional authority under the Appointments Clause to adjudicate claims.[2]  The trend illustrated by these decisions, combined with the Supreme Court’s decision in June to abandon the Chevron doctrine of extending deference to federal agency rule-making proceedings, portend significant changes in the way employers interact with federal agencies that enforce labor and employment law. ...

Ted 's Insights

Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.16.24

From the Administrative State to the Wild West? What Employers Should Know About the Shifting Administrative Law Landscape

Over the past several years, federal courts have increasingly questioned the authority of administrative law judges (ALJs) to adjudicate alleged violations of certain labor and employment statutes.  In the last several weeks, two U.S. district courts in Texas issued decisions halting unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that NLRB ALJs lack the constitutional authority to preside over such actions due to unconstitutional protections against their removal.[1]  Similarly, the last year has seen several decisions by courts in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits finding that ALJs, whose decisions are not reviewable by a Presidential appointee, lack constitutional authority under the Appointments Clause to adjudicate claims.[2]  The trend illustrated by these decisions, combined with the Supreme Court’s decision in June to abandon the Chevron doctrine of extending deference to federal agency rule-making proceedings, portend significant changes in the way employers interact with federal agencies that enforce labor and employment law. ...