Wage Hour Litigation
Wage & Hour Litigation Attorneys in Washington, D.C.
Help for Unpaid Wages in D.C. & Chicago, IL
At Clark Law Group, we understand when an employer is knowingly cheating its employees. We also know the law and which steps to take to rectify the situation.
We can help if:
- Your employer is not reporting your hours, hourly pay, and deductions on your pay stub
- Your employer does not follow the law when it comes to work duties and break time (for example, requiring workers to work before they punch in, over their lunch break, or after they punch out)
- Your employer does not pay you time and a half for any hours over 40 hours in a week that you work (depending on the type of work you do)
- Your employer is not paying you at your agreed-on wage rate or salary
- Your employer is not paying you an owed commission or bonus
No matter what type of job you have — in a restaurant, construction, landscaping, banking, or retail — the team at Clark Law Group is here to help. We serve workers of all types throughout the Washington, D.C., area, including union and federal workers.
LINCOLN-ODUMU V. MEDICAL FACULTY ASSOCS.
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.
JAFARI V. OLD DOMINION TRANSIT MANAGEMENT CO.
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.
FRANCOIS V. OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION
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.
CONGRESS V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
324 F.Supp.3d 164 (D.D.C. 2018) Holding that employee stated claims of disability discrimination and retaliation.
CHURCHILL V. PRINCE GEORGE’S CTY. PUB. SCH.
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.