Robert J. Simandl

Listen to this article

On Robert J. Simandl’s first day of law school, a professor told the class, “Today is the first day of the rest of your life. You’ll find that the law is a demanding mistress, which will change your life and your approach to the world.”

Truer words were never spoken, says Simandl, a benefits, labor and employment attorney at Simandl & Murray S.C. in Waukesha. These days, he works largely as an advisor/negotiator for employers. One of the most satisfying aspects of his job is it’s a constant intellectual challenge — both to keep up with the rapid-fire developments in his specialty, and to think creatively to solve problems. Some say the world is black and white; Simandl learned in law school that there’s a lot of gray.

Simandl started his career as a CPA. He frequently worked alongside employee benefits lawyers. They helped convince him to change his course, and combine his business acumen with law.

Since completing law school, Simandl has worked both in-house, and in private firms. At one of the firms, Simandl met an employment litigator, John Murray. Ten years later, and after crossing paths many times at various points in their careers, the two decided to form a law firm to meld their complementary strengths.

Simandl & Murray opened at the beginning of 2007 as a boutique HR firm representing employers.

Perhaps Simandl’s most significant contribution to the law so far, he says, is his work with Sen. Bob Dole and the legislative committee that drafted the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. The following year, he was appointed by Gov. Tommy Thompson to serve on Wisconsin’s Family and Medical Leave Task Force.

Both projects entailed a great deal of time in Washington D.C. and Madison, respectively, on top of a busy practice.

These laws were not created with politics in mind, he states. Rather, “It was an important opportunity for labor and management to work together, to talk about what a family and medical leave act meant, and how these two would try to create some methodology for employers to have a practical basis to move forward, as opposed to constantly looking over their shoulders.”

However, he and others have been disappointed by subsequent interpretations of the law. “The law has transgressed into something it wasn’t intended to be. It was intended to be an opportunity to preserve employment and employment rights for employees facing serious health conditions that threatened their ability to remain at work. It’s now, unfortunately, become more of a sick leave policy. … It was meant to cover the big stuff — cancer, pregnancy — not sinusitis, allergies or migraines.

“It really comes down to the law creating a level ground for people to meet personal medical situations, but also, to allow the employer a forum for developing reasonable business strategies.”

Proposed regulations to more strictly define “serious medical condition” are coming from Washington D.C. in January, he notes, and there is constant talk about making adjustments to Wisconsin’s version as well.