1601-0007-18 (D.C. Office of Employee Appeals, July 18, 2019) Denying OSSE’s petition to review the AJ’s ruling that OSSE did not have requisite cause to remove the complainant employee from her employment.
324 F.Supp.3d 164 (D.D.C. 2018) Holding that employee stated claims of disability discrimination and retaliation.
No. PWG-17-980, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197713 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2017) Holding that the employee stated a claim of sexual orientation discrimination, sex stereotyping discrimination, and retaliation.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16113 (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2016) Holding that a D.C Human Right Act claim was not subject to federal preemption.
275 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2017) Holding that there was a dispute of fact whether WMATA reasonably accommodated its employee.
228 A.3d 1066, 1076 (D.C. 2020) Holding that the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law’s broad coverage includes requiring employers to pay employees expense reimbursement promised as a consideration for beginning employment.
No. 2013 CA 7454 P (MPA) (D.C. Super. Ct. August 8, 2014) Reversing administrative judge’s ruling and remanding the case back to OEA for the AJ to address why Employee was terminated
from her position for failure to secure an S Class Endorsement, while other employees who also lacked the endorsement were permitted to continue to work.
74 A.3d 698 (D.C. 2013) Holding that the OHR’s finding that employer engaged with disabled employee in the interactive process, as required by Human Rights Act, was not supported by substantial evidence.
462 Fed.Appx. 385 (4th Cir. 2012) Holding that an employee’s intracompany complaint may constitute protected activity within meaning of FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.
738 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010) Former restaurant wait staff and bussers filed collective and class action against owner and operator of various restaurants and companies alleging violations of wage payment and overtime obligations under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL), and Equal Pay Act (EPA); the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer and granted summary judgment for plaintiffs.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88659 (D.D.C. July 8, 2016) Holding that the D.C. Wage Payment Collection Law protects employees of DC employer who are dispatched outside of DC to telework from home.
Clark Law Group, PLLC secured a favorable jury verdict in Hall v. WMATA before Chief Judge Howell, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Our client suffered from debilitating migraines and was accommodated with leave for doctor’s appointments and could call out when her condition flared consistent with her union’s CBA. An earlier written accommodation decision by WMATA, had been in place for about 4 years without any issue. After a new supervisor was assigned, suddenly our client was engaged in “a pattern of excessive absences,” and received written warnings. Additionally, the new supervisor repeatedly made derogatory statements regarding our client’s disability, in particular, “do you want to be handicapped or do you want to work.” After complaints to human resources fell on deaf ears, our client tried to get out of the supervisor’s orbit by applying for a transfer to another department. After two rounds of interviews, our client was notified that she has been selected. However, when her supervisor learns of selection, she inserts herself into the hiring process and successfully has the job offer rescinded after sharing her interpretation of our client’s absences as excessive and revealing that she had placed our client on PIP. Testimony showed that whether an employee was placed on a PIP is normally not considered in the hiring process. After the job was rescinded, the supervisor recommended our client’s termination of employment for failing the PIP.
The Court had previously ruled that our client was disabled as a matter of law (Hall v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., Civil Action No. 19-1800 (BAH) (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2020)). The jury found that our client was not hired for the selected position because of her disability and that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her disability and awarded our client $254,000.
Click here to read more.