Sacramento, CA
Administrative law Lawyer at Sacramento, CA
Practice Areas: Administrative Law
OUTCOME: 9th Cir. upheld District Court granting Gov't Motion to Dismiss Pending
USPS terminated Dr. Fanucchi's contract because of his service as Foreman for Federal Grand Jury in San Francisco Division, U.S. District Court. Postal Service claims it is not subject to the Jury Syst ... ems Improvement Act due to soveriegn immunity. Federal civil action was filed in Feb. 2011 and the AUSA filed a motion to dismiss.
OUTCOME: Jury verdict - $325,000.00; Case settled in Sept. 2011
A federal jury awarded $325,000.00 to Mary Rose Diefenderfer, finding that the FAA retaliated against her for filing EEO complaints by failing to select her for ATOS and CSET positions. Diefenderfer pe ... rsevered through 16 years of litigation, including four trials, a Jury trial before District Judge Zilly, a 35 day MSPB hearing, a 12 day EEOC hearing and an arbitration hearing. The federal district court trial team was headed by Judith Lonnquist, with the assistance of her associate, Wendy Lilledoll, and Mary Dryovage, San Francisco, CA.
OUTCOME: Damages, back pay and attorneys fees
Mr. Wesley worked as an Auditor for the Defense Contracting Auditing Agency (DCAA) for eighteen years from September 21, 1987 until February 26, 2006. He was removed from his employment within approxi ... mately two years of his eligibility for retirement benefits. Mr. Wesley was never disciplined in his entire career as an Auditor with DCAA.
OUTCOME: Lifetime retirement and $175,000.00
Mr. Dumaguit, an EEO Investigator for the Postal Service, repeatedly complained to OIG and management about ongoing discrimination, harassment and abuse of Filipino workers, racial slurs and a work en ... vironment plagued with harassment. He blew the whistle re: Postal managers systematically retaliating against employees who filed discrimination complaints.
OUTCOME: Pending before MSPB
A former Internal Revenue Service executive won a rare victory in court in a whistle-blower case in which he raised allegations of the existence of official favoritism to rich and politically connected ... California families and businesses that owe back taxes. The case is significant because almost all whistle-blower claims are rejected by the federal court that usually hears such matters; this case was heard by a different court. The 9th Circuit ruled that the former executive, Peter W. Coons, who became the I.R.S. chief tax collector in Northern California in 1997, was improperly denied protection under the 1994 Whistleblower Protection Act. It sent the case back to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears initial whistle-blower claims. Mr. Coons told his 400 revenue officers to treat all delinquent taxpayers equally, regardless of their social prominence or political connections. This egalitarian policy, he said in a 1999 interview, got him into hot water with his superiors. While Mr. Coons never named the taxpayers, public records showed that those whom he said received favored treatment included Al Davis, owner of the Oakland Raiders football team; the family of Joseph Alioto, who was once mayor of San Francisco; and Golden ADA, which the federal government says was a Russian diamond-for-cash money-laundering operation. Mr. Coons also complained internally that an I.R.S. lawyer had leaked information to Golden ADA but had not been disciplined. That lawyer, William Sims, was disbarred in April after the Ninth Circuit Court, in an unrelated case, found that he and another I.R.S. lawyer had committed fraud to win tax shelter cases. Mr. Sims & representatives for Mr. Davis, the Aliotos and Golden ADA have denied any improper conduct. The appellate court rejected the legal theory used by the MSPB to deny protection to Mr. Coons.
OUTCOME: Mint firing of disabled Mint employees rev'd
Rehabilitation Act requires federal government to be a model employer. U.S. Mint set up 5 disabled mint workers for failure by establishing new job requirements and refused to reassign them to existing ... positions. Judge Conti granted an injunction. At trial, the Mint was forced to admit that reasonable accommodation would not cause an undue hardship, and failure to accommodate was a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. 40 FEP Cases 394, 40 EPD 3681 [preliminary injunction], 677 F.Supp. 636 (N.D. Cal 1987) [compliance], 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 990 (N.D. Cal 1992) [final order].
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
