"Whistleblower Provisions Of The Dodd-Frank Act," Law360 (July 20, 2010).
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Call The Employment Law Group law firm, in Washington, DC, if you have been a victim of workplace discrimination or harassment, or have experienced other violations of your civil rights. Our seasoned trial attorneys have earned an enviable record of favorable settlements and verdicts on behalf of our clients. We take great pride in our reputation as aggressive litigators and persuasive negotiators. Toll Free: 888-603-0983 Phone: 202-331-3911 Fax: 202-261-2835
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Employment Law Group Mission Statement
Founded in 1997, The Employment Law Group® law firm is a litigation boutique concentrating on the representation of employees, whistleblowers, and immigrants. We champion the rights of those who suffer discrimination, injustice, inequality, and retaliation in the workplace. With offices conveniently located on Farragut Square in our Nation's Capital, we have built a national practice on core principles of excellence, ethics, and the use of leading-edge technologies. As advocates for employment fairness, we strive to be model employers and employees ourselves. In our work as lawyers and legal professionals, we are zealous advocates for our clients - we are your workplace champions.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Employment Law Group Attorneys
When you become our client, you can relax. We stand ready to use our extensive legal knowledge, our broad experience, our commitment to protect your rights, and to vigorously pursue justice on your behalf.
R. Scott Oswald, Principal
Adam Augustine Carter, Principal
Nicholas Woodfield, Principal
Jason Zuckerman, Principal
Dave Scher, Principal
David H. Martin, Of Counsel
Subhashini Bollini, Associate
Tom Harrington, Associate
Cynthia Smith, Associate
Michael Vogelsang, Associate
Kellee Kruse, Associate
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
R. Scott Oswald, Principal
Adam Augustine Carter, Principal
Nicholas Woodfield, Principal
Jason Zuckerman, Principal
Dave Scher, Principal
David H. Martin, Of Counsel
Subhashini Bollini, Associate
Tom Harrington, Associate
Cynthia Smith, Associate
Michael Vogelsang, Associate
Kellee Kruse, Associate
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Employment Law Group Washington Lawyers
"The Employment Law Group
has performed with urgent professionalism. Their research
and preparation was extremely thorough, and all my
questions were answered
within 24 hours."
"I have used The Employment
Law Group twice and have
always been amazed with the degree to which The Employment Law Group mastered minute details."
"The Employment Law Group provides professionalism, empathy, and results."
"The attorneys at
The Employment Law Group
are warm and generous people
who will go to great lengths
to help."
"I have never regretted my decision to rely on The Employment Law Group to represent me in what was one of the most important events in my lifetime."
"There will always be many thanks from my family to The Employment Law Group for years to come."
"The Employment Law Group represented my interests professionally and competently."
"The Employment Law Group was able to achieve my desired results in a timely and proficient manner."
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
has performed with urgent professionalism. Their research
and preparation was extremely thorough, and all my
questions were answered
within 24 hours."
"I have used The Employment
Law Group twice and have
always been amazed with the degree to which The Employment Law Group mastered minute details."
"The Employment Law Group provides professionalism, empathy, and results."
"The attorneys at
The Employment Law Group
are warm and generous people
who will go to great lengths
to help."
"I have never regretted my decision to rely on The Employment Law Group to represent me in what was one of the most important events in my lifetime."
"There will always be many thanks from my family to The Employment Law Group for years to come."
"The Employment Law Group represented my interests professionally and competently."
"The Employment Law Group was able to achieve my desired results in a timely and proficient manner."
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Employment Law Group Federal Employee Representation
Federal Employee Representation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have experience representing federal employees in whistleblower retaliation cases.
What law protects Federal Employee Whistleblowers?
The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) prohibits federal agencies from taking adverse personnel actions against federal employees who engage in whistleblowing activities. Under the WPA, employees who believe they have been subjected to reprisal because of their protected disclosures may: (1) state a claim with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or (2) pursue an individual right of action before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); (3) appeal to the MSPB regarding an agency's adverse action against the employee; or (4) initiate a grievance proceeding pursuant to negotiated grievance procedures.
If a federal employee chooses to make a claim for whistleblower retaliation with the OSC, the OSC is obligated to investigate the allegations and make a decision within 240 days of receipt of a complaint as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice took place. If the OSC renders an unfavorable decision, an employee can still seek relief by submitting his whistleblower reprisal case to the MSPB 60 days after the OSC closes their investigation or 120 days after filing a complaint with the OSC.
What activities are protected?
An employee participates in protected activity by disclosing information that evidences: fraud; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; a violation of a law, rule or regulation conducted by the government; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Specific examples include:
Cooperating with or disclosing information to an Inspector General or Special Counsel;
Refusing to obey an order that would violate law;
Testifying or lawfully assisting others exercise an appeal, complaint or grievance right; and
Exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule or regulation.
To be protected under the WPA, an employee must meet a reasonable belief standard. Recently, The Employment Law Group® law firm obtained a landmark decision on the meaning of reasonable belief in Drake v. Agency for International Development, where the Federal Circuit held that a whistleblower does not need to prove that he disclosed an actual violation of the law, but instead that he had a reasonable belief that there was a violation of a law, rule or regulation.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail?
Under the WPA, an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) the employee made a protected whistleblowing disclosure; and
(2) a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency's personnel action.
If an employee meets this burden, the agency must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions in the absence of the disclosures.
What retaliatory acts are prohibited under the WPA?
The WPA prohibits any action taken by an employer that has a negative or adverse impact on an employee's terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. This includes blacklisting, demotion, denial of benefits, denial of overtime or promotion, failure to hire or to promote, termination, intimidation, and reduction in pay.
What can a prevailing plaintiff recover?
Under the WPA, a prevailing employee will be made whole, i.e., will be returned to the same position he or she would have been absent the retaliation. In particular, the WPA authorizes reinstatement, back pay for lost wages, compensatory damages, and litigation costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have experience representing federal employees in whistleblower retaliation cases.
What law protects Federal Employee Whistleblowers?
The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) prohibits federal agencies from taking adverse personnel actions against federal employees who engage in whistleblowing activities. Under the WPA, employees who believe they have been subjected to reprisal because of their protected disclosures may: (1) state a claim with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or (2) pursue an individual right of action before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); (3) appeal to the MSPB regarding an agency's adverse action against the employee; or (4) initiate a grievance proceeding pursuant to negotiated grievance procedures.
If a federal employee chooses to make a claim for whistleblower retaliation with the OSC, the OSC is obligated to investigate the allegations and make a decision within 240 days of receipt of a complaint as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice took place. If the OSC renders an unfavorable decision, an employee can still seek relief by submitting his whistleblower reprisal case to the MSPB 60 days after the OSC closes their investigation or 120 days after filing a complaint with the OSC.
What activities are protected?
An employee participates in protected activity by disclosing information that evidences: fraud; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; a violation of a law, rule or regulation conducted by the government; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Specific examples include:
Cooperating with or disclosing information to an Inspector General or Special Counsel;
Refusing to obey an order that would violate law;
Testifying or lawfully assisting others exercise an appeal, complaint or grievance right; and
Exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule or regulation.
To be protected under the WPA, an employee must meet a reasonable belief standard. Recently, The Employment Law Group® law firm obtained a landmark decision on the meaning of reasonable belief in Drake v. Agency for International Development, where the Federal Circuit held that a whistleblower does not need to prove that he disclosed an actual violation of the law, but instead that he had a reasonable belief that there was a violation of a law, rule or regulation.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail?
Under the WPA, an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) the employee made a protected whistleblowing disclosure; and
(2) a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency's personnel action.
If an employee meets this burden, the agency must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions in the absence of the disclosures.
What retaliatory acts are prohibited under the WPA?
The WPA prohibits any action taken by an employer that has a negative or adverse impact on an employee's terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. This includes blacklisting, demotion, denial of benefits, denial of overtime or promotion, failure to hire or to promote, termination, intimidation, and reduction in pay.
What can a prevailing plaintiff recover?
Under the WPA, a prevailing employee will be made whole, i.e., will be returned to the same position he or she would have been absent the retaliation. In particular, the WPA authorizes reinstatement, back pay for lost wages, compensatory damages, and litigation costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Employment Law Group® law firm secures over $579,000
The Employment Law Group® law firm secures over $579,000 in FMLA Retaliation Claim
The Employment Law Group® law firm won a jury trial brought by a former pharmaceutical sales representative who was retaliated against for taking maternity leave protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
The Employment Law Group® law firm won a jury trial brought by a former pharmaceutical sales representative who was retaliated against for taking maternity leave protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Employment Law Group® Law Firm Secures $466,000 Plus Verdict in Equal Pay Act Case
On December 22, 2008, The Employment Law Group® law firm obtained a verdict of $466,816 for a former female director of the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") who alleged that the NTSB discriminated against her by paying her less than similarly-situated male directors at the NTSB. In her complaint, the former director also alleged that the NTSB ignored her complaints when she questioned the pay differential. Finding that the former director established a violation of the Equal Pay Act and that the NTSB failed to prove that the wage disparity between the former female director and her male counterparts was not gender-based, the Court of Federal Claims awarded the former female director lost back pay, lost retirement benefits and attorneys' fees. The case name is Cooke v. United States.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Employment Law Group Federal Employee Representation
Federal Employee Representation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have experience representing federal employees in whistleblower retaliation cases.
What law protects Federal Employee Whistleblowers?
The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) prohibits federal agencies from taking adverse personnel actions against federal employees who engage in whistleblowing activities. Under the WPA, employees who believe they have been subjected to reprisal because of their protected disclosures may: (1) state a claim with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or (2) pursue an individual right of action before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); (3) appeal to the MSPB regarding an agency's adverse action against the employee; or (4) initiate a grievance proceeding pursuant to negotiated grievance procedures.
If a federal employee chooses to make a claim for whistleblower retaliation with the OSC, the OSC is obligated to investigate the allegations and make a decision within 240 days of receipt of a complaint as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice took place. If the OSC renders an unfavorable decision, an employee can still seek relief by submitting his whistleblower reprisal case to the MSPB 60 days after the OSC closes their investigation or 120 days after filing a complaint with the OSC.
What activities are protected?
An employee participates in protected activity by disclosing information that evidences: fraud; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; a violation of a law, rule or regulation conducted by the government; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Specific examples include:
Cooperating with or disclosing information to an Inspector General or Special Counsel;
Refusing to obey an order that would violate law;
Testifying or lawfully assisting others exercise an appeal, complaint or grievance right; and
Exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule or regulation.
To be protected under the WPA, an employee must meet a reasonable belief standard. Recently, The Employment Law Group® law firm obtained a landmark decision on the meaning of reasonable belief in Drake v. Agency for International Development, where the Federal Circuit held that a whistleblower does not need to prove that he disclosed an actual violation of the law, but instead that he had a reasonable belief that there was a violation of a law, rule or regulation.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail?
Under the WPA, an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) the employee made a protected whistleblowing disclosure; and
(2) a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency's personnel action.
If an employee meets this burden, the agency must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions in the absence of the disclosures.
What retaliatory acts are prohibited under the WPA?
The WPA prohibits any action taken by an employer that has a negative or adverse impact on an employee's terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. This includes blacklisting, demotion, denial of benefits, denial of overtime or promotion, failure to hire or to promote, termination, intimidation, and reduction in pay.
What can a prevailing plaintiff recover?
Under the WPA, a prevailing employee will be made whole, i.e., will be returned to the same position he or she would have been absent the retaliation. In particular, the WPA authorizes reinstatement, back pay for lost wages, compensatory damages, and litigation costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have experience representing federal employees in whistleblower retaliation cases.
What law protects Federal Employee Whistleblowers?
The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) prohibits federal agencies from taking adverse personnel actions against federal employees who engage in whistleblowing activities. Under the WPA, employees who believe they have been subjected to reprisal because of their protected disclosures may: (1) state a claim with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or (2) pursue an individual right of action before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); (3) appeal to the MSPB regarding an agency's adverse action against the employee; or (4) initiate a grievance proceeding pursuant to negotiated grievance procedures.
If a federal employee chooses to make a claim for whistleblower retaliation with the OSC, the OSC is obligated to investigate the allegations and make a decision within 240 days of receipt of a complaint as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice took place. If the OSC renders an unfavorable decision, an employee can still seek relief by submitting his whistleblower reprisal case to the MSPB 60 days after the OSC closes their investigation or 120 days after filing a complaint with the OSC.
What activities are protected?
An employee participates in protected activity by disclosing information that evidences: fraud; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; a violation of a law, rule or regulation conducted by the government; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Specific examples include:
Cooperating with or disclosing information to an Inspector General or Special Counsel;
Refusing to obey an order that would violate law;
Testifying or lawfully assisting others exercise an appeal, complaint or grievance right; and
Exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule or regulation.
To be protected under the WPA, an employee must meet a reasonable belief standard. Recently, The Employment Law Group® law firm obtained a landmark decision on the meaning of reasonable belief in Drake v. Agency for International Development, where the Federal Circuit held that a whistleblower does not need to prove that he disclosed an actual violation of the law, but instead that he had a reasonable belief that there was a violation of a law, rule or regulation.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail?
Under the WPA, an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) the employee made a protected whistleblowing disclosure; and
(2) a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency's personnel action.
If an employee meets this burden, the agency must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions in the absence of the disclosures.
What retaliatory acts are prohibited under the WPA?
The WPA prohibits any action taken by an employer that has a negative or adverse impact on an employee's terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. This includes blacklisting, demotion, denial of benefits, denial of overtime or promotion, failure to hire or to promote, termination, intimidation, and reduction in pay.
What can a prevailing plaintiff recover?
Under the WPA, a prevailing employee will be made whole, i.e., will be returned to the same position he or she would have been absent the retaliation. In particular, the WPA authorizes reinstatement, back pay for lost wages, compensatory damages, and litigation costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Employment Law Group® law firm litigating whistleblower retaliation
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating whistleblower retaliation claims on behalf of employees, including in the following areas:
Airline Whistleblower Representation
Commercial Motor Carrier Whistleblower Representation
D.C. Whistleblower Representation
Economic Stimulus Whistleblower Protections
Environmental Whistleblower Representation
Federal Employee Whistleblower Representation
Nuclear Whistleblower Representation
Public Transportation Whistleblower Representation
Qui tam Whistleblower Representation
Railroad Whistleblower Representation
Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Representation
Tax Whistleblower Representation
Wrongful Discharge Representation
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Airline Whistleblower Representation
Commercial Motor Carrier Whistleblower Representation
D.C. Whistleblower Representation
Economic Stimulus Whistleblower Protections
Environmental Whistleblower Representation
Federal Employee Whistleblower Representation
Nuclear Whistleblower Representation
Public Transportation Whistleblower Representation
Qui tam Whistleblower Representation
Railroad Whistleblower Representation
Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Representation
Tax Whistleblower Representation
Wrongful Discharge Representation
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Employment Law Group Employment Law & Counseling
Has your employer retaliated against you for disclosing illegal practices?
Have you been sexually harassed at your workplace?
Has your employer discriminated against you?
Have you been punished or fired for something that was not your fault?
Have you been offered an inadequate severance package, vis-Ã -vis your value?
Are you negotiating an employment contract and needing some expert advice?
Are you an executive in the process of negotiating a compensation package?
Do you feel your employer has failed to treat you fairly on these issues?
Affirmative action
Corporate whistleblower act
Employee benefits
Wrongful discharge
Employment contracts
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
USERRA Rights
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Executive compensation
Negotiated severances
Golden parachutes
Employment law covers a complex network of laws that controls how employers must treat employees, former employees, and applicants for employment.
We represent clients who face civil rights violations in the workplace, including sexual harassment and discrimination based on race, nationality, religion, disability, gender, or other factors. We assist our clients in receiving compensation for their illegal mistreatment, including monetary awards and remedies such as ridding the workplace of the environment that allowed the illegal treatment to occur and restoring the client to the job position he or she earned. The Employment Law Group® law firm will be a powerful partner to protect your legal rights!
Federal Employment Issues
We represent employees in a variety of claims against government employers, including unlawful racial, gender, age, or disability discrimination, affirmative action, sexual harassment, employee benefits, whistleblower litigation, wrongful discharge, employment contracts, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Federal Employer's Liability Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and special laws governing federal employment. Because of our broad rage of experience interpreting and construing federal employment statutes and case law, we are also able to provide employers with sound advice regarding compliance with applicable statutes and regulations.
Contact us at The Employment Law Group® law firm, and tell us about your case. We will answer all inquiries within forty-eight hours, or call us at 202-331-3911 or 888-603-0983.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Have you been sexually harassed at your workplace?
Has your employer discriminated against you?
Have you been punished or fired for something that was not your fault?
Have you been offered an inadequate severance package, vis-Ã -vis your value?
Are you negotiating an employment contract and needing some expert advice?
Are you an executive in the process of negotiating a compensation package?
Do you feel your employer has failed to treat you fairly on these issues?
Affirmative action
Corporate whistleblower act
Employee benefits
Wrongful discharge
Employment contracts
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
USERRA Rights
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Executive compensation
Negotiated severances
Golden parachutes
Employment law covers a complex network of laws that controls how employers must treat employees, former employees, and applicants for employment.
We represent clients who face civil rights violations in the workplace, including sexual harassment and discrimination based on race, nationality, religion, disability, gender, or other factors. We assist our clients in receiving compensation for their illegal mistreatment, including monetary awards and remedies such as ridding the workplace of the environment that allowed the illegal treatment to occur and restoring the client to the job position he or she earned. The Employment Law Group® law firm will be a powerful partner to protect your legal rights!
Federal Employment Issues
We represent employees in a variety of claims against government employers, including unlawful racial, gender, age, or disability discrimination, affirmative action, sexual harassment, employee benefits, whistleblower litigation, wrongful discharge, employment contracts, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Federal Employer's Liability Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and special laws governing federal employment. Because of our broad rage of experience interpreting and construing federal employment statutes and case law, we are also able to provide employers with sound advice regarding compliance with applicable statutes and regulations.
Contact us at The Employment Law Group® law firm, and tell us about your case. We will answer all inquiries within forty-eight hours, or call us at 202-331-3911 or 888-603-0983.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Employment Law Group Non-Compete Litigation
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have experience representing employees in litigation concerning non-compete agreements, also known as restrictive covenants.
When is a non-compete agreement unenforceable?
The enforceability and validity of a non-compete is usually controlled by state law. There are many bases upon which an employee can challenge the enforceability of a non-compete, including the following:
The restriction provided by the non-compete agreement is not necessary to protect the employer's business interest;
The restriction precludes the employee from earning a living;
The restriction violates public policy;
The temporal scope of the non-compete agreement is overly broad;
The geographic scope of the restriction is unreasonable;
The non-compete agreement is unclear or ambiguous; or
The employer terminated the employee for an unlawful reason.
Pace of Non-compete Litigation
Non-compete litigation often moves at a quick pace, and may require an immediate response to a motion for preliminary injunction or a motion for a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, it is critical to retain skilled counsel capable of promptly preparing an effective response.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
When is a non-compete agreement unenforceable?
The enforceability and validity of a non-compete is usually controlled by state law. There are many bases upon which an employee can challenge the enforceability of a non-compete, including the following:
The restriction provided by the non-compete agreement is not necessary to protect the employer's business interest;
The restriction precludes the employee from earning a living;
The restriction violates public policy;
The temporal scope of the non-compete agreement is overly broad;
The geographic scope of the restriction is unreasonable;
The non-compete agreement is unclear or ambiguous; or
The employer terminated the employee for an unlawful reason.
Pace of Non-compete Litigation
Non-compete litigation often moves at a quick pace, and may require an immediate response to a motion for preliminary injunction or a motion for a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, it is critical to retain skilled counsel capable of promptly preparing an effective response.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Employment Law Group OUR TEAM: Professional Staff
The Employment Law Group® law firm recognizes that a law firm cannot function without a highly competent and knowledgeable staff. The following individuals are the people behind the scenes at The Employment Law Group® law firm who interact on a daily basis with the clients, provide support for the attorneys, and work to make certain that each and every client's case is handled like it is the only case in the firm:
Stephanie Johnson, Legal Assistant
Andrea Downing, Legal Assistant
Tadena Simpson, Legal Assistant
Janice Pardue, Legal Assistant
Andrew Schroeder, Legal Assistant
Tomi Ojo-Ade, Legal Assistant
Vijay Mani, Legal Assistant
Lourdes Maria Suazo, Immigration Assistant
Jeremy Schneider, Legal Assistant
Shane Larsen, Legal Assistant
David Fulleborn, Legal Assistant
Rebecca Borgese, Legal Assistant
Cynthia Hunt, Legal Assistant
Dallas Hammer, Legal Assistant
Richard Peterson, Legal Assistant
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Stephanie Johnson, Legal Assistant
Andrea Downing, Legal Assistant
Tadena Simpson, Legal Assistant
Janice Pardue, Legal Assistant
Andrew Schroeder, Legal Assistant
Tomi Ojo-Ade, Legal Assistant
Vijay Mani, Legal Assistant
Lourdes Maria Suazo, Immigration Assistant
Jeremy Schneider, Legal Assistant
Shane Larsen, Legal Assistant
David Fulleborn, Legal Assistant
Rebecca Borgese, Legal Assistant
Cynthia Hunt, Legal Assistant
Dallas Hammer, Legal Assistant
Richard Peterson, Legal Assistant
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The Employment Law Group Wrongful Discharge litigation
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group law firm have substantial experience representing employees that are wrongfully discharged by their employers.
Public Policy Exception to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine
Although an employee is generally considered to be employed "at will" and can be discharged by an employer for any reason or for no reason at all, most states have adopted public policy exceptions to protect employees who disclose criminal, illegal, unethical or unsafe practices. In addition, the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine protects employees who refuse to engage in illegal conduct.
DC Wrongful Discharge Tort
In the District of Columbia, an employee may sue an employer for wrongful discharge if the employer terminates the employee for: (1) refusing to engage in illegal conduct, (2) exercising a statutory right, or (3) reporting an employer's or a co-worker's illegal conduct. Specific examples of public policy exceptions to the "at will" employment doctrine include:
Refusing to drive a truck without a required inspection sticker in violation of a D.C. statute;
Testifying before the D.C. City Council about patient safety issues;
Filing or threatening to file a complaint regarding an employer's violation of D.C.'s minimum wage statutes;
Threatening to inform the Food & Drug Administration about drugs being maintained at an unsafe temperature; and
Reporting a co-worker's health code violation.
An employee alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must bring a claim within 3 years of the alleged wrongful termination. A prevailing employee may be awarded lost pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
MD Wrongful Discharge Tort
In Maryland, an employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the employee's termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. Maryland and federal legislative enactments, and administrative regulations can serve as a source of the public policy. A complaint alleging the tort of wrongful discharge must contain a substantial degree of particularity. Examples of conduct that is protected under Maryland's wrongful discharge tort include:
Filing a worker's compensation claim;
Refusing to violate a third person's right to privacy;
Filing assault and battery charges against a manager;
Taking time off to serve on a jury;
Insisting on an employer's compliance with the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and
Reporting a co-worker's suspected criminal activities to law enforcement authorities.
An employee alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must bring a claim within 3 years of the alleged wrongful termination. A prevailing employee may be awarded lost pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
Virginia Wrongful Discharge Tort
Unlike Maryland and D.C.'s wrongful discharge tort, an employee asserting a claim for wrongful discharge under Virginia law must identify a Virginia state statute establishing a public policy that was violated by the employer in terminating the employee, which is generally limited to two categories of statutes: (1) statutes that explicitly express a public policy of the Commonwealth; and (2) statutes designed to protect personal property, personal rights, health, safety, or welfare. The employee must also show that she is a member of the class of persons that the statute is intended to benefit or protect.
Under Virginia law, an employee alleging wrongful discharge must make a claim within one year of the alleged wrongful termination. A prevailing employee may be awarded lost pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
In 2007, The Employment Law Group® law firm established precedent under Virginia's wrongful discharge tort in McFarland v. Virginia Retirement Services of Chesterfield, LLC, where Judge Dohnal held that a nursing home's termination of an Activities Director and Office Manager for reporting health and safety violations can constitute a wrongful discharge.
If you have been wrongfully discharged by your employer, you can take legal action. Contact The Employment Law Group® law firm at 866-603-0983 or inquiry@employmentlawgroup.com to discuss your potential claim.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Public Policy Exception to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine
Although an employee is generally considered to be employed "at will" and can be discharged by an employer for any reason or for no reason at all, most states have adopted public policy exceptions to protect employees who disclose criminal, illegal, unethical or unsafe practices. In addition, the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine protects employees who refuse to engage in illegal conduct.
DC Wrongful Discharge Tort
In the District of Columbia, an employee may sue an employer for wrongful discharge if the employer terminates the employee for: (1) refusing to engage in illegal conduct, (2) exercising a statutory right, or (3) reporting an employer's or a co-worker's illegal conduct. Specific examples of public policy exceptions to the "at will" employment doctrine include:
Refusing to drive a truck without a required inspection sticker in violation of a D.C. statute;
Testifying before the D.C. City Council about patient safety issues;
Filing or threatening to file a complaint regarding an employer's violation of D.C.'s minimum wage statutes;
Threatening to inform the Food & Drug Administration about drugs being maintained at an unsafe temperature; and
Reporting a co-worker's health code violation.
An employee alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must bring a claim within 3 years of the alleged wrongful termination. A prevailing employee may be awarded lost pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
MD Wrongful Discharge Tort
In Maryland, an employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the employee's termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. Maryland and federal legislative enactments, and administrative regulations can serve as a source of the public policy. A complaint alleging the tort of wrongful discharge must contain a substantial degree of particularity. Examples of conduct that is protected under Maryland's wrongful discharge tort include:
Filing a worker's compensation claim;
Refusing to violate a third person's right to privacy;
Filing assault and battery charges against a manager;
Taking time off to serve on a jury;
Insisting on an employer's compliance with the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and
Reporting a co-worker's suspected criminal activities to law enforcement authorities.
An employee alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must bring a claim within 3 years of the alleged wrongful termination. A prevailing employee may be awarded lost pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
Virginia Wrongful Discharge Tort
Unlike Maryland and D.C.'s wrongful discharge tort, an employee asserting a claim for wrongful discharge under Virginia law must identify a Virginia state statute establishing a public policy that was violated by the employer in terminating the employee, which is generally limited to two categories of statutes: (1) statutes that explicitly express a public policy of the Commonwealth; and (2) statutes designed to protect personal property, personal rights, health, safety, or welfare. The employee must also show that she is a member of the class of persons that the statute is intended to benefit or protect.
Under Virginia law, an employee alleging wrongful discharge must make a claim within one year of the alleged wrongful termination. A prevailing employee may be awarded lost pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
In 2007, The Employment Law Group® law firm established precedent under Virginia's wrongful discharge tort in McFarland v. Virginia Retirement Services of Chesterfield, LLC, where Judge Dohnal held that a nursing home's termination of an Activities Director and Office Manager for reporting health and safety violations can constitute a wrongful discharge.
If you have been wrongfully discharged by your employer, you can take legal action. Contact The Employment Law Group® law firm at 866-603-0983 or inquiry@employmentlawgroup.com to discuss your potential claim.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Employment Law Group Sexual Harassment
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group law firm have experience litigating cases on behalf of employees who have suffered sexual harassment in the workplace. Recently in Sterling v. Atlantic Automotive Corporation, The Employment Law Group® law firm obtained a $1 million dollar verdict for an employee who experienced ongoing sexual harassment by her supervisor.
What laws Prohibit Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII, the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA), and Article 49B of the Maryland Civil Code. Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sexual harassment applies only to labor organizations, companies, or employment agencies with more than 15 employees. The D.C. Human Rights Act however, applies to all employers regardless of size.
What is Considered Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment includes: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and any verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that affects an individual's employment.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail under Federal Law?
Under Title VII, there are two types of sexual harassment claims that can be made: tangible employment action and hostile work environment.
To prevail on a tangible employment action for sexual harassment, an employee must make a prima facie case that: (1) he/she was a member of a protected class; (2) he/she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; (3) his/her refusal to submit to a supervisor's sexual demands affected his employment status; and (4) the harassing supervisor used his authority to subject the employee to adverse job consequences.
An employee alleging sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment must show: (1) he was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (2) the harassment was based on sex; and (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive, and created an abusive working environment.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail under the D.C. Human Rights Act?
An employee claiming sexual harassment under the DCHRA must establish a prima facie case demonstrating that unwelcome verbal and/or physical sexual advances were directed at him or her in the workplace, resulting in an abusive or hostile working environment.
Retaliation for Reporting Sexual Harassment is Prohibited
Section 704 (a) of Title VII and the DCHRA prohibit retaliation against employees who file sexual harassment complaints. Retaliatory actions include: termination, suspension, demotion, reduction in salary, and any act that might dissuade a reasonable person from reporting sexual harassment.
What can a prevailing plaintiff recover?
A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and attorney fees. In addition, Title VII authorizes exemplary or punitive damages.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
What laws Prohibit Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII, the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA), and Article 49B of the Maryland Civil Code. Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sexual harassment applies only to labor organizations, companies, or employment agencies with more than 15 employees. The D.C. Human Rights Act however, applies to all employers regardless of size.
What is Considered Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment includes: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and any verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that affects an individual's employment.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail under Federal Law?
Under Title VII, there are two types of sexual harassment claims that can be made: tangible employment action and hostile work environment.
To prevail on a tangible employment action for sexual harassment, an employee must make a prima facie case that: (1) he/she was a member of a protected class; (2) he/she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; (3) his/her refusal to submit to a supervisor's sexual demands affected his employment status; and (4) the harassing supervisor used his authority to subject the employee to adverse job consequences.
An employee alleging sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment must show: (1) he was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (2) the harassment was based on sex; and (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive, and created an abusive working environment.
What must a plaintiff prove to prevail under the D.C. Human Rights Act?
An employee claiming sexual harassment under the DCHRA must establish a prima facie case demonstrating that unwelcome verbal and/or physical sexual advances were directed at him or her in the workplace, resulting in an abusive or hostile working environment.
Retaliation for Reporting Sexual Harassment is Prohibited
Section 704 (a) of Title VII and the DCHRA prohibit retaliation against employees who file sexual harassment complaints. Retaliatory actions include: termination, suspension, demotion, reduction in salary, and any act that might dissuade a reasonable person from reporting sexual harassment.
What can a prevailing plaintiff recover?
A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and attorney fees. In addition, Title VII authorizes exemplary or punitive damages.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The Employment Law Group Whistleblower Case
Jury Verdict in Case Brought Under D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act Case Awards Over $282K
The Employment Law Group law firm secured a verdict of over $282,000 in a case brought under the D.C. WPA. The suit was brought on behalf of a former program director who blew the whistle on supervisors that were falsifying the results of a federally-funded education program. This is one of the largest ever awards under the D.C. WPA.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
The Employment Law Group law firm secured a verdict of over $282,000 in a case brought under the D.C. WPA. The suit was brought on behalf of a former program director who blew the whistle on supervisors that were falsifying the results of a federally-funded education program. This is one of the largest ever awards under the D.C. WPA.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Friday, July 9, 2010
Employment Law Group Law Firm REPRESENTATIVE CASES
The Employment Law Group law firm secures over $579,000 in FMLA Retaliation Claim
The Employment Law Group law firm won a jury trial brought by a former pharmaceutical sales representative who was retaliated against for taking maternity leave protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
The Employment Law Group law firm won a jury trial brought by a former pharmaceutical sales representative who was retaliated against for taking maternity leave protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Employment Law Group Non Payment of Overtime or Wages
Did your boss fail to pay you for your overtime?
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA") non-exempt employees are entitled to time-and-a-half compensation, and the FLSA makes it illegal for an employer to withhold overtime pay from a non-exempt employee who works over 40 hours in a workweek. This means that any overtime worked in a particular workweek must be paid on the pay day covering the same pay period in which the overtime hours were worked.
Even so, employers often try to avoid paying overtime by misclassifying employees as "exempt," having employees work "off the clock," or refusing to pay employees for certain hours worked (such as putting on uniforms or equipment or putting these same things away).
Employers also sometimes do not pay any wages at all, claiming that they do not have the money or the tools, books, uniforms and the like were not returned. Very often this leads to a minimum wage violation under the FLSA, as this conduct is illegal in most circumstances. In other cases, employers do not pay full wages to employees or pay below minimum wage when the wages for the week are averaged. This is almost always an illegal wage violation under the FLSA.
It does not matter if you agreed to work for less than minimum wage or for free:
Under the FLSA an employee cannot waive their rights. So, when an employer strikes a deal with an employee allowing the employee to work off the clock for tips or for some other purposes, the employer still has to pay wages. The FLSA doesn't let employers take advantage of employees in this manner because it would be so easy for an employer to just claim "he just wanted to work a little more for free." The rule is that if the employer allows you to work, you have to get paid for all of the time you worked.
Remedies for Unpaid Overtime or Nonpayment of Wages:
Under the FLSA, employees may file a private suit against their employer for unpaid overtime or minimum wage violations. In addition, FLSA enforces penalties on those employers who improperly classify their employees as "exempt." Congress intended the FLSA's remedies to deter violations as well as to compensate employees for underpaid work and consequently, depending on the violation involved, provide both "liquidated damages" and criminal penalties.
Violations of minimum wage and overtime payment requirements of the FLSA can lead to substantial paydays for underpaid or unpaid employees. Employees are entitled to be properly paid for every hour worked, and under the FLSA's liquidated damages provision wage differentials are almost always doubled to compensate the employee up to $2 for every $1 that was not paid to them on a timely basis. Finally, a prevailing employee is entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees and costs, so that the employer, not the employee, pays for the employee's legal services.
In addition to representing cases involving nonpayment of overtime, The Employment Law Group® law firm has experience representing employees whose employer:
Refuses to pay minimum wages;
Pays below the federal amount for overtime;
Expects employees to work excessive hours for salary pay; and
Pays wages or salary with goods or services instead of money
Contact us at The Employment Law Group law firm to schedule an appointment to discuss your nonpayment of wages case.
The Employment Law Group law firm has published an article, titled "Wage and Hour Laws", on the Fair Standards Labor Act.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA") non-exempt employees are entitled to time-and-a-half compensation, and the FLSA makes it illegal for an employer to withhold overtime pay from a non-exempt employee who works over 40 hours in a workweek. This means that any overtime worked in a particular workweek must be paid on the pay day covering the same pay period in which the overtime hours were worked.
Even so, employers often try to avoid paying overtime by misclassifying employees as "exempt," having employees work "off the clock," or refusing to pay employees for certain hours worked (such as putting on uniforms or equipment or putting these same things away).
Employers also sometimes do not pay any wages at all, claiming that they do not have the money or the tools, books, uniforms and the like were not returned. Very often this leads to a minimum wage violation under the FLSA, as this conduct is illegal in most circumstances. In other cases, employers do not pay full wages to employees or pay below minimum wage when the wages for the week are averaged. This is almost always an illegal wage violation under the FLSA.
It does not matter if you agreed to work for less than minimum wage or for free:
Under the FLSA an employee cannot waive their rights. So, when an employer strikes a deal with an employee allowing the employee to work off the clock for tips or for some other purposes, the employer still has to pay wages. The FLSA doesn't let employers take advantage of employees in this manner because it would be so easy for an employer to just claim "he just wanted to work a little more for free." The rule is that if the employer allows you to work, you have to get paid for all of the time you worked.
Remedies for Unpaid Overtime or Nonpayment of Wages:
Under the FLSA, employees may file a private suit against their employer for unpaid overtime or minimum wage violations. In addition, FLSA enforces penalties on those employers who improperly classify their employees as "exempt." Congress intended the FLSA's remedies to deter violations as well as to compensate employees for underpaid work and consequently, depending on the violation involved, provide both "liquidated damages" and criminal penalties.
Violations of minimum wage and overtime payment requirements of the FLSA can lead to substantial paydays for underpaid or unpaid employees. Employees are entitled to be properly paid for every hour worked, and under the FLSA's liquidated damages provision wage differentials are almost always doubled to compensate the employee up to $2 for every $1 that was not paid to them on a timely basis. Finally, a prevailing employee is entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees and costs, so that the employer, not the employee, pays for the employee's legal services.
In addition to representing cases involving nonpayment of overtime, The Employment Law Group® law firm has experience representing employees whose employer:
Refuses to pay minimum wages;
Pays below the federal amount for overtime;
Expects employees to work excessive hours for salary pay; and
Pays wages or salary with goods or services instead of money
Contact us at The Employment Law Group law firm to schedule an appointment to discuss your nonpayment of wages case.
The Employment Law Group law firm has published an article, titled "Wage and Hour Laws", on the Fair Standards Labor Act.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Employment Law Group -Airline Whistleblower Representation
The attorneys at The Employment Law Group law firm have substantial experience litigating whistleblower retaliation claims on behalf of employees in the airline industry.
What laws protect Airline Whistleblowers?
In 2000, Congress passed The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) to protect employees who expose air carrier safety violations. Under AIR-21, employees who believe they have suffered adverse action for reporting air safety violations can file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) within 90 days of the date on which the discriminatory decision has been made and communicated to the employee.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
What laws protect Airline Whistleblowers?
In 2000, Congress passed The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) to protect employees who expose air carrier safety violations. Under AIR-21, employees who believe they have suffered adverse action for reporting air safety violations can file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) within 90 days of the date on which the discriminatory decision has been made and communicated to the employee.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net
The Employment Law Group
Getting fired, being refused a promotion you worked hard to deserve, not getting paid for regular time or overtime hours you have worked, being denied a benefit claim by your employer, being retaliated against for whistleblowing or being subject to harassment or discrimination in the workplace can be a violation of state and federal employment laws. State and federal law extends many rights, privileges, and protections to employers, but never at the expense of employees who may suffer illegal abuses or injustices in the name of profits
http://www.EmploymentLawGroup.net
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Employment Law Group
The Employment Law Group® law firm, serves people in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland who have been victims of discrimination, harassment, or other violations of their civil rights. Our seasoned trial attorneys have earned a highly desirable record of favorable settlements and verdicts on behalf of our clients.
http://employmentlawgroup.net/
http://employmentlawgroup.net/
Employment Law Group "Proven Leaders in Employment Law"
Proven Leaders in Employment Law
Getting fired, being refused a promotion you worked hard to deserve, not getting paid for regular time or overtime hours you have worked, being denied a benefit claim by your employer, being retaliated against for whistleblowing or being subject to harassment or discrimination in the workplace can be a violation of state and federal employment laws. State and federal law extends many rights, privileges, and protections to employers, but never at the expense of employees who may suffer illegal abuses or injustices in the name of profits.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/
Getting fired, being refused a promotion you worked hard to deserve, not getting paid for regular time or overtime hours you have worked, being denied a benefit claim by your employer, being retaliated against for whistleblowing or being subject to harassment or discrimination in the workplace can be a violation of state and federal employment laws. State and federal law extends many rights, privileges, and protections to employers, but never at the expense of employees who may suffer illegal abuses or injustices in the name of profits.
http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)