Shauneida C. Navarrete
Areas of Focus
Overview
Shauneida Navarrete’s practice focuses on employment and general commercial litigation disputes in state and federal courts, as well as domestic arbitration forums. In all matters, she partners with clients to help ensure a reasonable resolution for their disputes— whether the resolutions require general advice, mediation, or litigation.
Career & Education
- Fordham University School of Law, J.D., 2009
- Barnard College, B.A., 2004
- New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- Member, American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section
- Member, American Bar Association Litigation Section
Shauneida's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.28.25
On April 21, 2025, the FTC filed an enforcement action against Uber alleging that Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One without proper consent, created substantial barriers to cancellation, and misrepresented the financial benefits of the subscription. The claims include violations of the FTC Act—which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in commerce—and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)—which prohibits charging consumers for goods and services sold on the internet through a negative option (i.e., failing to cancel a subscription, unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s information and obtains the consumer’s expressed informed consent for the charges and provides simple mechanisms for the consumer to stop the recurring charges).
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.21.25
ClassPass’ Petition for Rehearing Will Tell the Future of Sign-In Wrap Agreements on the Internet
Publication | 01.28.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
Representative Matters
- Defending a multinational mining and energy corporation in a billion dollar U.S. federal civil RICO action.
- Representing thousands of individuals in a class action employment discrimination litigation.
- Defending international law firm in defense against former clients and attorneys concerning malpractice, breach of contract, and indemnification claims.
- Counseling and defending financial institution in defense of discrimination investigation conducted by New York City Commission on Human Rights.
- Defending Board of Elections in voting rights claims brought by individual constituents.
- Counseling a majority stockholder in tender offer litigation concerning the purchase of a Fortune 1000 company.
- Counseling and defending a Fortune 1000 client in a New York Attorney General investigation involving allegations of false advertising and deceptive marketing.
- Counseling non-party software company specializing in providing media data to advertising agencies in subpoena response in contentious multi-district litigation.
- Counseling a non-profit organization against former landlord’s holdover and breach of contract claim.
- Counseling and defending an attorney draftsman in deposition regarding construction of two multimillion-dollar trusts and corresponding wills.
- Representing an AmLaw100 law firm in arbitration against former investment management client seeking over U.S. $1 million in unpaid legal fees.
- Representing an AmLaw100 law firm in enforcing a court judgment and collection of over U.S. $1 million judgment from investment management client.
- Counseling a private technology company regarding due diligence requirements in merger with private equity firm.
- Counseling numerous victims of domestic violence in divorces from their abusers.
Shauneida's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.28.25
On April 21, 2025, the FTC filed an enforcement action against Uber alleging that Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One without proper consent, created substantial barriers to cancellation, and misrepresented the financial benefits of the subscription. The claims include violations of the FTC Act—which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in commerce—and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)—which prohibits charging consumers for goods and services sold on the internet through a negative option (i.e., failing to cancel a subscription, unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s information and obtains the consumer’s expressed informed consent for the charges and provides simple mechanisms for the consumer to stop the recurring charges).
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.21.25
ClassPass’ Petition for Rehearing Will Tell the Future of Sign-In Wrap Agreements on the Internet
Publication | 01.28.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
Insights
New York City AI Bias Law Charts New Territory for Employers
|08.29.22
Bloomberg Law's Daily Labor Report ®
- |
2015
Commercial Litigation in New York State Courts, Thomson Reuters, 4th edition
- |
2011-2015
Practising Law Institute’s Answer Book: Insider Trading Law and Compliance, Practising Law Institute
Shauneida's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.28.25
On April 21, 2025, the FTC filed an enforcement action against Uber alleging that Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One without proper consent, created substantial barriers to cancellation, and misrepresented the financial benefits of the subscription. The claims include violations of the FTC Act—which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in commerce—and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)—which prohibits charging consumers for goods and services sold on the internet through a negative option (i.e., failing to cancel a subscription, unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s information and obtains the consumer’s expressed informed consent for the charges and provides simple mechanisms for the consumer to stop the recurring charges).
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.21.25
ClassPass’ Petition for Rehearing Will Tell the Future of Sign-In Wrap Agreements on the Internet
Publication | 01.28.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
