Federal Service Hearings:
Carroll Melton v. Dep't of Housing and Urban Development, (EEOC Docket No. 570-2012-00096X): we won a bench trial held before an EEOC Administrative Judge in a disability discrimination case brought under the Rehabilitation Act and obtained an award restoring our client to work, ordering the agency to allow our client to telecommute as a reasonable accommodation for his disability, ordering payment of compensatory damages, attorney's fees, interest and nearly four years' of lost wages and benefits.
Mary Schiappa v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, (Case No. 11-AC-135/2012): we won a bench trial held before an Office of Compliance appointed Administrative Hearing Officer in a disability discrimination case brought under the Rehabilitation Act and obtained an order directing the agency to grant our client's request for reasonable accommodations, awarding compensatory damages and awarding attorney's fees.
Bren Lowery v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, (Case No.: 10-AC-14/2011): we won a bench trial held before an Office of Compliance appointed Administrative Hearing Officer in a hostile work environment racial discrimination case brought under Title VII and obtained an order awarding compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
Jeffery Smith v. Dep't of the Treasury, (EEOC Docket No.l00-2005-00704X): we won a bench trial held before an EEOC Administrative Judge in a Title VII retaliation case and obtained an order awarding compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
Janyce Wiggins v. Dept of Veterans Affairs, (EEOC CASE NO. 100-AO-7779X): we t won a bench trial held before an EEOC Administrative Judge in a Title VII retaliation case alleging non-selection and obtained an order awarding compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.
Contract/Non-Competition/Trade Secret Trials:
Renee Stiles v. Central Truck Center, Inc., (Circuit Court, Prince George's County, Civil Action No.: CAL10-18531/2011): we won a jury trial on behalf of a former sales person who alleged that she was denied commissions for landing a large account and obtained an order awarding unpaid wages.
Healthcare Strategies, Inc. v. The WellNet Healthcare Plan, Inc. Case No. 13-C-07-70195 (Circuit Court, Howard County, Maryland, 2007): Alan Lescht obtained a decision defeating a motion for preliminary injunction following a hearing on the merits in a case where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant misappropriated trade secrets and customers.
Robinson v. East Capitol View Community Development Corporation, Inc., Case No. 04CA 5416 (DC Superior Court, 2006): Alan Lescht obtained a jury verdict finding breach of an employment contract.
Concept & Strategies v. Lombard (Superior Court, DC, 2013): We obtained a decision defeating a motion for a preliminary injunction in a case where a former employer of our client accused her of breaching her non compete, confidentiality and non solicitation agreement.
Sexual Harassment Trials:
Faraci v. CACI, 464 F.Supp.2d 527 (AAA arbitration award confirmed by US District Court, ED VA 2006): we won an arbitration in a sexual harassment and retaliation claim brought on behalf of an employee of a government contractor who was stationed overseas and obtained an order awarding payment of compensatory damages and attorney's fees. .
Figueroa v. Savanar, 2002 WL 83667 (US District Court, SDNY 2002): we won a jury trial in a sexual harassment case and obtained a $200,000 verdict .
Chadwick v. D.C ., 56 F.Supp.2d 69 (US District Court, D.C. 1999): we won a jury trial in a sexual harassment case and obtained a $400,000 verdict on behalf of a former employee of the District of Columbia's Oak Hill Youth center who alleged that she was sexually harassed by her former supervisor. .
Disability Discrimination Trials:
Grullon v. South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp ., (Supreme Court NY County, 712 N.Y. Co. 2000): we won a jury trial and obtained a $125,804.89 verdict in disability discrimination case brought on behalf of a former case manager of a work training center who alleged that he was fired because he was a recovering alcoholic. The jury awarded him 25,000 in compensatory damages, 50,804.89 in lost wages and 50,000 in punitive damages, following a three day trial.
Assault And Battery/Civil Rights Trials:
Yousif v. Safeway , 97-CV-200 (US District Court, D.Md. 1999): we won a jury trial and obtained a verdict of $422,500 on behalf of a night stocker who alleged he was fired because of his national origin and other civil rights violations. The jury awarded him $22,500 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages following a five day trial.
Race Discrimination Trials:
Juliette Johnson v. Reliable Mail Service, Inc., Case No. 99 Civ. 5877 (US District Court SDNY McKenna, J., 2002): we won a jury trial and obtained a ht obtained a $30,000 jury verdict where he represented a Black employee who had worked for the defendant for about one week and earned about $300 before she was fired. The Judge awarded her attorney's fees as well.
Retaliation Trials:
Reginald Fortune v. Joseph Smith & Sons, Inc., CAL06-15017 (Circuit Court, Prince George's County, 2008): we obtained a jury verdict finding unlawful employment discrimination retaliation on behalf of a warehouse employee who alleged he was fired for complaining about discrimination and obtained an order awarding compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
Linwood Jackson v. HABC, (US District Court, D. MD, Civ. No. 03-86 (BG)(JKB), (D. Md., 2004): we won a jury verdict finding unlawful employment discrimination retaliation on behalf of a painter who alleged that he was fired because he complained about what he believed to be unlawful discrimination at work and obtained an order awarding compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
Taylor v. ARE, Inc., Case No. 01-7204 (DC Superior Court Blackburne-Rigsby, J., 2005): we won a jury verdict finding unlawful employment discrimination retaliation in violation of the DC Human Rights Act on behalf of three former employees of a restaurant who alleged that they were fired because the opposed and complained about discrimination at work and obtained an order awarding compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
Unpaid WageTrials:
Petree v. Car-Life Enterprises, Inc., (Circuit Court, Charles County, 08-C-10-002208/2009): we won a jury trial and obtained an order awarding our client unpaid overtime wages.
McFarlane v. Gremillon, Case No. 242492-V (Circuit Court, Mont. Co., Md.): we won a jury trial and verdict fining a violation of the Md. Wage Payment Act on behalf of a household employee.
Goldstein v. Washington Promotions & Printing, Inc., (American Arbitration Association, 2012)
We won an arbitration of a claim alleging that a former employer violated the MD Wage Payment Act and obtained an award equal to three times the unpaid wages, plus attorney's fees and costs. Our client's claim arose after the company decided to cut his pay and then wouldn't pay his accrued but unpaid benefits after he quit. The arbitrator found that the contract required an agreement by both parties in order for the company to cut his pay and found that the wages were not withheld as a result of a bona fide dispute.
Public Policy Termination Trials:
Sandra Brown v. Noyes Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., Case No. 279648 (Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Md., 2007): we won a jury trial and obtained a verdict finding that the defendant violated the public policy of the State of Maryland by terminating our client's employment because she filed a claim for worker compensation benefits.
Federal Service Adverse Action Successes:
NIH:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a notice of proposal to remove him from his position for alleged inappropriate behavior directed at his supervisor. We submitted a written response to the proposal, pointing out that this employee was a veteran of war; he had suffered post traumatic stress disorder, combat trauma related disability, and various other disabilities; he had repeatedly told his supervisor and management about these medical conditions and requested reasonable accommodations that were denied; and he believed that the proposed removal was discriminatory based on his disabilities. After review of our submission, the Agency withdrew the proposed removal.
DOT:
A federal employee contacted us after the agency proposed to suspend her for 14 days for alleged careless work performance and improper conduct. The employee had a stellar performance record with no previous disciplinary actions. However, she had recently filed an EEO complaint regarding the agency's failure to reasonably accommodate her. We submitted a written response to the proposal alleging that the agency was retaliating against the employee for filing an EEO complaint. The agency reduced the penalty from a 14-day suspension to an admonishment.
VA:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a proposal to remove. She told us that before she received the proposal, she had been offered another position with the same agency but with a different organization and at a different location. After we explained the circumstances to agency counsel, the agency agreed not to pursue the proposed removal and to release the employee so that she could transition to her new position.
DOD:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a notice of proposal to remove her from her position. The employee believed that contract employees made complaints about her because she told her supervisors that the contract employees' services were no longer needed. After we submitted a written response to the proposal and represented her during her oral response, the agency decided not to remove her but instead, offered her a different position at the same grade and pay.
DOD:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a proposal to remove her from her position. Although the employee had committed the offenses alleged in the proposal, the employee had a mental health disability and had made several requests for accommodations that the agency had ignored. After we submitted a written response to the proposal pointing out to the agency that our client should have been accommodated, the agency agreed and did not remove the employee.
National Guard Bureau:
We represented an employee with over 28 years of federal service. After many years of successful performance evaluations, she began working for a new supervisor who placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan, denied her a within grade increase and proposed her removal. Because of her age and number of years with the federal government, she was able to apply for discontinued service retirement. We were able to negotiate a settlement agreement with the agency that included payment of all of her attorney's fees and approximately two months of administrative leave with pay.
NIH:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a notice of proposal to remove him from his position for allegedly failing to maintain a regular full time schedule and for alleged medical inability to perform his job duties. We submitted a written response to the proposal pointing out that this employee suffered from gastrointestinal problems; he had verbally advised his supervisor of his medical problems and submitted medical documentation identifying his disorders and requesting the reasonable accommodation of a flexible schedule; and he believed that the proposed removal was discriminatory based on his disability. After review of our submission, the Agency withdrew the proposed removal.
Department of Defense
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a proposal to remove him from his position. The employee had engaged in some of the alleged infractions but so had several of his coworkers, who were not similarly subjected to the same discipline. We reviewed the Agency's Handbooks, Policies, and evidence it submitted to substantiate its allegations against the employee and found several inconsistencies with its' argument. After submitting a written response highlighting those inconsistencies, the employee's past satisfactory job performance for over 25-years in the federal service, and providing an oral reply, the Agency agreed and did not remove the employee.
Department of Homeland Security (TSA)
A federal employee with over 10-years of service contacted us after receiving a proposal to remove him from his position. The employee had committed the alleged infractions; however, there were discrepancies regarding the correct dates and procedures the Agency required of him. We prepared a written response to the Agency's allegations, participated in an oral reply, and the Agency agreed to not remove the employee.
Defense Logistics Agency
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a proposal to remove him after his supervisor alleged he had threatened him. The employee had excellent performance ratings and no prior disciplinary actions in his nine year federal career. He had, however, filed several EEO complaints alleging his supervisor was discriminating against him based on his national origin. We submitted a written response to the proposal alleging that the agency was retaliating against the employee for his prior EEO complaints. The agency reduced the penalty from a removal to a 14-day suspension.
MSPB Successes:
Smithsonian:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving notice that he had been terminated from his position as a security guard in a federal building. After appealing the termination to the MSPB, the agency agreed to change the termination to a resignation, pay the employee $18,000.00, and place the employee on administrative leave until he was able to retire from the federal government.
VA:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a notice that she had been terminated from her position. The employee believed the removal was in retaliation for EEO complaints that she had filed against her supervisor. After appealing the termination to the MSPB, the agency agreed to reinstate the employee to a new position with back pay and benefits and pay all of her attorney's fees.
Dep't of the Interior:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving a proposal to demote him and transfer him to a location hundreds of miles from his residence. After we submitted a written response to the proposal, the agency demoted the employee but did not make him transfer to a new location. After we filed an appeal with the MSPB we learned that the agency had not demoted another employee who had committed an offense far greater than the offense committed by our client. When we pointed this out to the agency, the agency rescinded the demotion, reinstated the employee to his former position and restored all of his back pay.
Security Clearance Successes:
A federal employee contacted us after receiving notice of proposal to find her unsuitable for employment because she had previously used recreational drugs. After we submitted a written response to the proposal pointing out that the recreational drug use occurred more than 10 years earlier and that she subsequently obtained a secret clearance, the agency changed its mind and withdrew its proposal.
.
