Representative Cases

Some of the firm’s representative cases include:

  • 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).

  • Walker v. Master Sec. Co. LLC, 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)

  • Butler v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 275 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2017) (holding that there was a dispute of fact whether WMATA reasonably accommodated its employee)

  • 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)

  • Sheena Washington v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals, 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).

  • Sparrow v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, 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).

  • 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).

  • Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc., 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).

  • Ellis v. Georgetown University Hosp., 723 F.Supp.2d 42 (D.D.C. 2010) (holding that former employee demonstrated sufficient facts supporting a claim of retaliation that could not be dismissed at summary judgment).

Contact Us


Clark Law Group, PLLC
Washington, DC
1100 Connecticut Ave, NW
Suite 920
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 293-0015
Fax: (202) 293-0115
Toll Free: 855-202-0011

Clark Law Group, PLLC
Chicago, IL
150 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1925
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 574-3420
Toll Free: 855-769-7500

Clark Weekly

Topic of the Week

Worker Classification: Independent Contractor or Employee

Knowing whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is important for both workers and employers. Any worker should understand how they are classified, and what it means. As an independent contractor, you may have more freedom to choose ho

Read more...

Blog of the Week

How Does the Passage of AB 5 in California Affect Me and Others in the Gig Economy?

Today Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 5. The untitled new law will have a significant impact on the gig economy in California. It will be increasingly difficult to lawfully classify California workers as independent contractors. With the exception of several significant carveouts, which I discuss below, the definition of “to employ” announced by the California Supreme Court last year in Dynamex v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 will define the relationship between the hired and the hirer moving forward. The core of the new law takes effect January 1, 2020.

Thought for the Week

"Workers lose basic protections like the minimum wage, paid sick days and health insurance benefits. Employers shirk responsibility to safety net programs like workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Taxpayers are left to foot the bill," Reversing the trend of misclassification is a necessary and important step to improve the lives of working people."

–Gavin Newsom; California Gov.

List of the Week

from Workplace Fairness

Top Searches on Leaves this week: 

  • Sick Leave
  • Disability Leave
  • Paid Sick Leave
  • Family Medical Leave
  • Military Leave

 

 

 

 

Top Five News Headlines

  1. Even In A Competitive Labor Market, Little Vacation For Workers
  2. Low-wage workers gather to build power across sectors in the South
  3. Home care workers have a lousy job. A new bill in Congress aims to change that.
  4. BMW Loses Its Only Female Board Member as Head of HR Steps Down
  5. Marquez Brothers to Pay $2 Million to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Suit