Attorney John Patrick Mahoney's Legal Cases

Discrimination

UK v. Secretary, Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Case No. 531-2011-00095X (Shubow, Admin. J. Mar. 31, 2015)

Sep 17, 2015

OUTCOME: ATTORNEY MAHONEY'S CLIENT AWARDED NEARLY $330,000 BY THE EEOC:

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015: ATTORNEY MAHONEY'S CLIENT AWARDED NEARLY $330,000 BY THE EEOC: Attorney John Mahoney successfully litigated the recent federal employee EEOC case of Complainant [Client's name disgu ... ised to protect confidentiality] v. Secretary, Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Case No. 531-2011-00095X (EEOC Baltimore Field Office, Shubow, Admin. J. Mar. 31, 2015)(which became the EEOC’s Final Decision on May 15, 2015). In that case, the parties, Complainant and the U.S.Dept. of the Army (hereinafter Agency), finalized and executed a settlement agreement on August 2, 2011 regarding liability. The EEOC’s March 31, 2015 Order Entering Judgment held the following: A hearing on damages was held in the Baltimore Office of the EEOC on September 19, 2012. A Bench Decision was issued on April 24, 2014. Complainant was awarded $200,000 in non-pecuniary damages and $6,600 in pecuniary damages for a total award of $206,600. Complainant filed her Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs on May 27, 2014. The Agency responded on July 3, 2014. The Decision on Attorney's Fees was issued on March 17, 2015. The Agency was ORDERED to pay Attorney's Fees of $120,760.32 and costs of $2,022.42. Judgment is entered in favor of Complainant with respect to the items and amounts set forth in the preceding paragraphs. The EEOC’s Decision went on to refer to Attorney Mahoney as follows: From January 2010 through March 2014, former Tully Rinckey P.L.L.C. Partner John Mahoney, acted as the supervisory Partner in this matter. C. Ex. 9, Declaration of John Mahoney. Under the 2013 Laffey Matrix, the prevailing market rate for Mahoney's time is $510 per hour. See C. Ex; 2 Spreadsheets of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Mahoney detailed his education, years of litigation and extensive federal employment law experience. See C. Ex. 9, Declaration of John Mahoney. Complainant v. Secretary, Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Case No. 531-2011-00095X (EEOC Baltimore Field Office Admin. J. Shubow Mar. 31, 2015)(which became the EEOC’s Final Decision on May 15, 2015)(emphasis added). The Agency paid the ordered awards in September 2015.

Employment and labor

Cohen v. Department of Homeland Security (ICE), MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-12-0427-I-1 (Jun. 19, 2014)(nonprecedential)

Jun 19, 2014

OUTCOME: MSPB Mitigated Client's Removal to 90-day suspension with backpay, benefits, & fees

Attorney John P. Mahoney successfully litigated this U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or "the Board") Petition for Review, resulting in the MSPB modifying its administrative judge's Initial De ... cision, which upheld Ms. Cohen's removal from federal service, and ordering the agency to: a) cancel the removal action and substitute a 90-day suspension effective March 30, 2012; b) pay the appellant the correct amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits; and c) notifying the appellant that she may be entitled to be paid by the agency for her reasonable attorneys fees and costs).

Discrimination

Hamilton v. Donley, Sec'y, Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 0520130469 (Dec. 20, 2013)(Settled May 14, 2012)

Dec 20, 2013

OUTCOME: Attorney Mahoney's Client Awarded Approximately $1,000,000, plus removal canceled and returned to LEO duty with a promotion.

Following Attorney John Mahoney’s preparation and submission of Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which the assigned EEOC Administrative Judge said he would grant on May 15, 2012, unless the c ... ase settled before then, Attorney John Mahoney entered into the following settlement agreement on behalf of his federal employee client, which settlement agreement was subsequently specifically enforced on settlement breach appeal in a published EEOC Reconsideration Request: The Agency shall reinstate the Complainant, effective May 16, 2010, to YK-1811-02, Criminal Investigator, and will promote him effective the same day to YK-1811-03, Criminal Investigator, earning $90,343 per annum (base pay). Appropriate locality pay and LEAP are in addition to this rate, which will place the Complainant at the equivalent GS-14 Step 3. Complainant agrees that this grade and step represents where he would be placed on the GS-14 pay chart provided all within grade increases and pay increases due to NSPS share/pay raise allocations he would have received (median rate given to all Agency employees who received a rating of 3) had taken place during the period October 2006 to May 16, 2010 and his promotion was effective May 16, 2010. The Agency shall provide back pay to the complainant in the amount he would have earned 2006-2010, with LEAP at the corresponding rates, less disability amounts received from OWCP, with interest. . . . For purposes of this paragraph, the Agency acknowledges that Complainant was not paid at all during the time April 26, 2010 through May 16, 2010. . . . . Complainant will also be paid NSPS bonuses for NSPS years 2008-2010 in the amounts of $1,171.00, $809.00, and $451.00, respectively. .... During the period between of time after May 16, 2010 and the effective date of the agreement, certain additional personnel actions would have occurred, as follows: Complainant would have converted out of NSPS on July 18, 2010. Because he had just been promoted, there would have been no pay adjustments in July 2010. The Complainant’s next within grade increase would have occurred May 22, 2011, placing the complainant at GS-14, Step 4. Complainant’s next within grade increase will occur on or about May 22, 2013. The Agency shall provide back pay to the Complainant in the amount he would have earned year to year, with LEAP at the corresponding rates, less amounts received for OWCP, if any, with interest. .... The Agency agrees to make the required agency contributions to FLERS retirement and Social Security and the maximum employer contribution to TSP in accordance with government regulations and Complainant’s contributions (e.g., maximum TSP contribution by employer, provided Complainant’s previous TSP elections reach the threshold for maximum employer matching contributions). Complainant shall be restored annual leave at the rate of 8 hours per pay period, and sick leave at the rate of 4 hours per pay period for the period of time between July 1, 2008 and May 16, 2010, subject to limits on the amount of maximum annual leave restoration, if any, and subject to the length of time in which such leave must be used or forfeited. The Agency shall pay the Complainant $275,000 in compensatory damages. 6. The Agency shall pay the Complainant’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $193,300.

Discrimination

O'Keefe v. Donahoe, Postmaster Gen., United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130848 (Jun. 11, 2013)

Jun 11, 2013

OUTCOME: EEOC Ruled Attorney Mahoney's client was discriminated against and ordered status quo anti relief, compensatory damages and fees..

Attorney John Mahoney supervised the successful representation of this Complainant before the EEOC. The Commission held that the Complainant, a carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, alleged that the age ... ncy subjected her to ongoing discriminatory harassment based on race (Caucasian), religion (Catholic and Reiki practitioner), color (white), and age (58). The EEOC found that the agency subjected her to harassment based on race and color. The Complainant established a prima facie case of a racially motivated hostile work environment. She provided evidence that she was a frequent victim of badgering, berating, nitpicking, and criticism in front of her coworkers, as well as excessive monitoring by her African-American supervisor. She submitted testimony that unlike other employees not of her race, the supervisor made her perform overtime work, goaded her to file an EEO complaint, issued her three disciplinary suspensions, and 10 predisciplinary interviews. The Complainant presented evidence that the supervisor engaged in similar negative behavior toward two other Caucasian employees and treated African-American employees more favorably. The Complainant asserted that she turned to the postmaster for assistance, but nothing was done. The Commission held that the supervisor's affidavit was "largely nonresponsive" to the questions asked by the EEO investigator. The supervisor could not recall whether she forced the carrier to work overtime or whether she treated African-American employees in the same way she treated the carrier. The postmaster also said that he did not recall anything about the situation. The EEOC found that the agency failed to rebut the initial inference of discrimination created by the Complainant's prima facie case. The EEOC held that an agency's failure to provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions will result in a finding of discrimination.

Employment and labor

Hussey v. United States Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-10-0130-A-1 (Jan. 6, 2011).

Jan 06, 2011

OUTCOME: Attorney Mahoney's Client's Removal Appeal Settled $45,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees based upon the successfully enforced settlement.

The MSPB issued three final decisions awarding John Mahoney's client over $45,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees based upon the successfully enforced settlement of the appellant’s removal appeal. In one ... of those decisions, the Board held that “the appellant met his burden of showing that he is the prevailing party, he incurred attorneys fees and that an award of attorneys’ fees is warranted in the interest of justice.”

Discrimination

Farrell v. Dep't of Treasury, EEOC Petition No. 0420070019 (Oct. 24, 2008)

Oct 24, 2008

OUTCOME: Attorney Mahoney's Petition to Enforce Previous EEOC Decision Granted in successful SES nonselection EEOC case

More than five years after the EEOC initially affirmed an EEOC Administrative Judge's decision finding the U.S. Department of the Treasury liable for sex discrimination when Attorney John P. Mahoney's ... Client (Petitioner) was not selected for an SES position, the Commission once again ordered the U.S. Department of the Treasury to calculate the Petitioner's salary based upon the assumption that she would have received the highest performance review available for each review period and should award benefits that the average outstanding SES employee at the agency received during each fiscal year at issue. Further, the EEOC found the Petitioner entitled to receive additional attorneys fees, as she was again the prevailing party.

Discrimination

Johnson v. Johanns, Sec'y, USDA, EEOC CASE No. 520-2006-00120X (EEOC NYDO, BAO, Default Judgment Sanctions Or. Jan. 22, 2007)

Jan 22, 2007

OUTCOME: Attorney Mahoney Secured Full-Relief Default Judgment Sanctions/Full Relied in Novel Removal EEOC Case

Attorney John P. Mahoney directed the litigation that led to a default judgment sanctions order against the USDA and an award of full relief for a terminated Federal Employee in a novel Race & National ... Origin Discrimination by Association and "Regarded as" Disability Discrimination case.

Government

See The Washington Post, Mar. 8, 2006, The Federal Page.

Mar 08, 2006

OUTCOME: Settled Client's claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation against FEC

Attorney John P. Mahoney represented a manager at the Federal Election Commission in successfully settling her claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation against that agency.

Discrimination

See the Gazette Newspaper June 3, 2005

Jun 03, 2005

OUTCOME: Attorney Mahoney Settled Client's EEO Disability Discrimination Case v. NIH, NCI

John P. Mahoney settled a disabled cancer survivor's claim of disability discrimination and retaliation in federal employment against the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of ... Health, National Cancer Institute.

Government

Cornyn v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0351-02-0576-I-1 (Sep. 30, 2003)

Sep 30, 2003

OUTCOME: Attorney Mahoney Successfully Represents the U.S. Department of the Treasury in MSPB RIF Appeal

Attorney John Mahoney represented the U.S. Department of the Treasury to successfully defend this MSPB Reduction in Force (RIF) MSPB appeal and Petition for Review.

John Patrick Mahoney's Legal Cases (16)

UK v. Secretary, Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Case No. 531-2011-00095X (Shubow, Admin. J. Mar. 31, 2015)

Cohen v. Department of Homeland Security (ICE), MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-12-0427-I-1 (Jun. 19, 2014)(nonprecedential)

Hamilton v. Donley, Sec'y, Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 0520130469 (Dec. 20, 2013)(Settled May 14, 2012)

O'Keefe v. Donahoe, Postmaster Gen., United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130848 (Jun. 11, 2013)

Hussey v. United States Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-10-0130-A-1 (Jan. 6, 2011).

Farrell v. Dep't of Treasury, EEOC Petition No. 0420070019 (Oct. 24, 2008)

Johnson v. Johanns, Sec'y, USDA, EEOC CASE No. 520-2006-00120X (EEOC NYDO, BAO, Default Judgment Sanctions Or. Jan. 22, 2007)

See The Washington Post, Mar. 8, 2006, The Federal Page.

See the Gazette Newspaper June 3, 2005

Cornyn v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0351-02-0576-I-1 (Sep. 30, 2003)