Do You Need a DC Employment Discrimination Lawyer?

Who is protected by DC employment discrimination laws?

Employment discrimination statutes vary widely across jurisdictions but may protect individuals based on their membership in the following classes: Race,  religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, military status, ancestry, marital status, physical appearance, genetic status, family responsibilities, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

Some of these protections are evolving. As an example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly covers race, color, religion, sex and national origin — but it has been interpreted to prohibit discrimination against employees because of their ancestry, culture, and linguistic characteristics, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity.

What are the key federal anti-discrimination laws?

Among the most important are:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• the Equal Pay Act
• The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA
• The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, or USERRA

What sort of workplace discrimination is prohibited?

Most employment discrimination statutes prohibit failing to hire or discharging any individual, or otherwise discriminating against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s membership in a protected class.

Federal law also protects employees against retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination or participating in an investigation of discriminatory practices.

What can a victim of discrimination recover?

If you have suffered illegal discrimination at work, you may be entitled to receive:

• Reinstatement
• Back pay for lost wages
• Front pay for future lost wages
• Compensatory damages
• Punitive damages
• Litigation costs and attorney fees

Does federal law prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression?

Not explicitly. However, recent U.S. Supreme Court and appellate court decisions have broadened the scope of Title VII’s protections by holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees simply because their behavior or appearance does not conform to traditional gender or sex stereotypes. In many instances, LGBT employees are able to bring Title VII claims in federal court if they experience workplace discrimination on the basis of gender. In addition, many states have enacted laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Discrimination Settlements and Verdicts by Employment Law Group

Here are a few:

• In Cooke v. United States, our attorneys obtained a $466,000 judgment for a female client who was paid less than her male co-workers in similar positions. The case established important precedents in the area of gender discrimination law under the Equal Pay Act, with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims holding that the offending employer bears a “heavy burden” in proving that a difference in pay is it not the result of gender discrimination. Additionally, the court held that the female employee had a right to choose one male employee’s salary to serve as the basis for calculating her damages, rather than having her salary compared to all male employees performing a similar job thus maximizing her recoverable damages.
• Our firm succeeded in obtaining a $1 million jury award for a victim of sexual harassment. In Sterling v. Atlantic Automotive Corp. we represented an employee whose supervisor subjected her to sexual harassment and continued his pattern of abuse even after the employee filed a complaint.
• TELG attorneys helped a client win a $650,000 award in a gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in which the employer retaliated against her for reporting a colleague’s gender discrimination complaint.
• We represented two clients who obtained a $101,000 jury verdict in a lawsuit against Virginia Tech. The jury found that Virginia Tech discriminated against the two female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts — and retaliated against one of the employees for complaining about the wage disparity.
• In Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., a TELG client was awarded a $579,338 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) jury verdict. Ms. Breeden worked for Novartis as a pharmaceutical sales representative and after announcing that she was pregnant, the company cut her sales territory, leaving her fewer accounts. After returning from maternity leave, the company informed her that the changes would be permanent and eventually eliminated her position altogether.
• In Inman v. Klockner-Pentaplast, our discrimination attorneys represented a former vice president who presented evidence that his employer fired him because of his age: The company was undertaking efforts to create the appearance of a younger and revitalized firm. Arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, our firm obtained a reversal of the lower court’s grant of summary judgment against Mr. Inman thereby allowing him to use the statements of non-decision makers in the company to show that the reasons offered by the company for his termination were pretextual. This decision set an important precedent in ADEA litigation.
• In Fink v. Richmond, the TELG law firm represented a schoolteacher in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit who was unable to continue her job after undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer. The teacher requested a new position that she believed would better accommodate her disability, however the school district refused to accommodate this request and placed her in a position as a substitute teacher.