Charles H. Saul

Charles H. Saul

Office:Pittsburgh, PA
Phone:(412) 355-4961
Cell:(412) 512-8409

Charles Saul represents employers and municipalities in all aspects of labor relations, employment law, and Section 1983 civil rights cases. He has extensive experience in representing these clients both privately and through their insurance carriers.

Upon graduating from law school, Charles worked for the National Labor Relations Board, where he tried more than 100 cases. After entering private practice, Charles litigated on behalf of clients in courts throughout the United States, including before the United States Supreme Court, where he was the prevailing attorney in the landmark case of Allegheny County v. ACLU.

Charles has experience representing clients before various administrative agencies, such as the EEOC, PHRC, NLRB, PLRB, OSHA, Wage and Hour, Workers’ Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, Labor Management Services, Bureau of Labor Standards, Securities Commission, LCB, Social Security, Patent and Trademark Office, City Planning Commission, City Historic Review Commission, and City Zoning Board.

Charles counsels employers on prophylactic, pro-active actions to prevent claims for sexual harassment, disability discrimination, racial discrimination, FLSA overtime claims, and other employment law violations. He also represents management in union organizational elections.

Charles is an experienced litigator who has successfully represented clients against suits filed under employment statutes, such as Title VII, the FLSA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Related litigation has included representing clients in claims for breach of non-compete clauses, trademark violations, defamation, wrongful discharge, and invasion of privacy. FLSA representation has also included class action representation regarding claims for overtime pay.

Charles also handles municipal defense litigation, particularly in defending municipalities against Section 1983 civil rights suits and related torts, such as claims of due process, first amendment, search and seizure, excessive force, wrongful death, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution violations.

Charles is a trained Mediator who has resolved difficult employment disputes through effective listening and communication skills, preparation, commitment, and creativity.


  • National Law Center, George Washington University (J.D., Honors)
  • Washington & Jefferson College (A.B., High Honors)


  • AV Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated

Bar Admissions:

  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions:

  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. Court of Appeals
  • U.S. Supreme Court

Professional Affiliations:

  • Allegheny County Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • Civil and Equal Rights Committee of PBA
  • Disabilities Committee of PBA
  • Judiciary Committee of PBA
  • Mediation Council of Western Pennsylvania

News and Verdicts:

Articles and Publications:

Representative Matters:

  • Represented prevailing party before the U.S. Supreme Court in landmark Section 1983 First Amendment case, Allegheny County v ACLU. Cited in literally thousands of cases and treatises, this case is studied by law students throughout the United States for its precedential and historical significance.
  • Represented prevailing party in landmark U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit employment case, Browning-Ferris Industries v. NLRB, setting the standard for determination of joint employer liability.
  • Represented national retailer sued in a class action case filed under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. Plaintiffs sought $84,000,000 in damages for the retailer’s alleged failure to comply with the Act's requirement that only a certain number of digits on credit card receipts can be displayed. As a result of novel arguments in a Motion to Dismiss, a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, and plaintiffs’ counsel's concern that our arguments would prevail and set a bad precedent in other similar cases plaintiffs’ counsel had filed, the plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal without a penny paid.
  • Represented a franchisee in a Charge brought by the EEOC alleging systemic Title VII hiring and firing practices. A negative finding by the EEOC could have exposed the franchisee to years of litigation, hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation costs, and millions in damages. A negative finding would also have prevented the franchisee from the prospective sale of its business for millions of dollars. Through an aggressive defense, Charles was able to convince the EEOC that there were no individual or systemic discriminatory hiring or firing decisions or practices. The case was dismissed, and the franchisee was able to consummate its sale of the business.
  • Represented a municipality and its Supervisors in a Section 1983 civil rights case filed by a litigious pro se plaintiff, who had filed numerous previous suits against the municipality, costing the municipality and its insurer thousands of dollars in defense costs. Charles took the unusual step of opposing the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The U.S. District Court Judge granted Charles’ Motion, which meant the plaintiff would have to pay a fee to file the Complaint. The Plaintiff never filed the Complaint and has not filed any further suits.
  • Represented national retailer whose employees were engaged in union organizational efforts. The union filed a Petition with the NLRB for an election. After meetings with the employees to dissuade them from unionization, the employees urged the union to withdraw the Petition. The union, facing defeat, capitulated and withdrew its Petition.
  • Represented municipality and its officials in a case in which the plaintiff sought a Mandamus Order to require the Defendants to enforce zoning regulations and pay plaintiff property owners over $200,000 for the diminution in value of their property. If successful, the suit would have also resulted in the demolition of a newly constructed light-industry facility and the loss of approximately 100 jobs and thousands of dollars in tax revenues. Charles successfully argued that the enforcement of zoning regulations was a discretionary matter and accordingly a mandamus order could not issue. The Court dismissed all claims against the municipality and its representatives.
  • Represented employer through its EPLI policy in a Title VII discrimination and sexual harassment suit by a terminated employee seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court pursuant to a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the case never went to trial.