Washington, DC
Employment and labor Lawyer at Washington, DC
Practice Areas: Employment & Labor, Sexual Harassment ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Successful
On September 7, 2016, Administrative Judge Vincent Hill, from the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office, issued an Order Entering Judgment and Decision on Damages determining that our client was subjected to ... disparate treatment based on her sex when she was sent home and charged with leave without pay for a week. The Judge awarded her $10,000 in compensatory damages, among other relief.
OUTCOME: Successful
On September 19, 2016, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) rejected the Army’s appeal and upheld the MSPB Administrative Judge’s finding of whistleblower retaliation. Our client worked as a Secur ... ity Specialist with the Army’s Compliance and Surety Directorate of the Blue Grass Chemical Activity (BGCA), in Richmond, Kentucky. During routine security checks, he noticed serious security violations that compromised national security. He disclosed those violations to his managers. Instead of remedying the violations, the Army terminated his employment. The Administrative Judge who oversaw the case, Dorothy L. Moran, from the MSPB’s Central Regional Office, determined that our client made protected whistleblower disclosures to his bosses and to the Office of Special Counsel. Judge Moran determined that the termination notice and other personnel actions were directly related to our client’s protected whistleblower disclosures. After a lengthy hearing, the MSPB Judge held that the Department of the Army failed to prove that it would have terminated our client in the absence of the protected whistleblower disclosures. The Administrative Judge ordered the agency to reinstate our client to his job, pay him back pay and benefits, among other relief. See Scoggins v. Army, MSPB Docket No. CH-1221-14-0228-W-2 (2015).
OUTCOME: Successful
On April 27, 2017, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge Cynthia McKnight, from the EEOC’s Washington Field Office, held that the United States Army subjected our client t ... o a hostile work environment and retaliation. AJ McKnight assessed the credibility of the witnesses and held that the Army manager demeaned, belittled, and humiliated our client during a meeting. AJ McKnight concluded that the manager’s actions would have deterred a reasonable person from opposing discrimination or participating in the EEO complaint process. AJ McKnight concluded that our client successfully proved that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her participation in the EEO process. This is an important case because it shows that an agency can be held liable for harassment, even if only occurred in one meeting.
OUTCOME: Successful
On December 1, 2017, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge Ricardo Cuevas, from the EEOC’s New York District Office, held that the United States Army intentionally committ ... ed an act of employment discrimination in violation of federal law. Judge Cuevas stated that the Army unlawful terminated our client without first engaging in the interactive process to determine if her disability (dwarfism) could be accommodated. Instead of interacting with our client and determining if the Army could reasonably accommodate her disability, the Army unlawfully terminated our client, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. AJ Cuevas ordered the Army to immediately reinstate our client to her job, pay her back pay and benefits dating back to the termination in 2013. The EEOC Judge also awarded her $65,000 in compensatory damages, among other relief.
OUTCOME: Successful
On December 15, 2017, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge Sharon Alexander, from the EEOC’s Washington Field Office, held that the United States Air Force subjected our ... female client to same-sex (sexual) harassment and retaliatory harassment. Judge Alexander held that the female manager made sexually inappropriate comments to our client on several occasions. Although it was brought to management’s attention, the Army failed to prove it exercised reasonable care to prevent the harassing behavior and failed to take prompt remedial action to remedy the harassment. Judge Alexander held that Army’s managers subjected our client to a hostile work environment. Judge Alexander stated the Army subjected our to increased and unfair scrutiny of her work and schedule, subjected her to unfair schedule changes, and made attempts to get her professional licensure revoked. According to the Judge, the Army went so far as to stymie her efforts to find a new job, by suggesting to her would be employer that she should not be hired, and by interfering with the credentialing process associated with a position she had already been offered. The Administrative Judge concluded that the harassment made our client’s working conditions so intolerable that she had no choice but to resign. In a rare finding, the Judge found the Air Force liable for our client’s “constructive discharge” from her job in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A damages hearing was held in April 2018. The parties are awaiting a ruling on damages.