Image of Workplace Discrimination and Retaliation: Know Your Rights

Top-Rated Discrimination Law Firm

The workplace discrimination attorneys at Zuckerman Law are deeply committed to ensuring that our clients are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace.  Eric Bachman, Chair of the Firm’s Workplace Discrimination Practice and ADA Lawyer, has dedicated his career to zealous advocacy for victims of discrimination and has obtained substantial wins both in private practice and in senior positions at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.  Bachman’s wins include a $100 million settlement in a disparate impact Title VII class action and a $16 million class action settlement against a major grocery chain.

This page provides an overview of issues that frequently arise in discrimination and retaliation cases and offers 50 short video answers to frequently asked questions about workplace discrimination.

Discrimination cases can be complex and the only way to know if you have a claim is to get advice on your specific situation.  To schedule a consultation, contact Eric Bachman at (202) 769-1681.

Frequently Asked Questions About Discrimination and Retaliation

Discrimination

Disability Discrimination

Retaliation

Damages or Remedies for Discrimination and Retaliation

Litigating Discrimination Claims

EEOC’s Role in Enforcing Anti-Discrimination Laws

Sexual Harassment

Guide for Victims of Sexual Harassment

The employment discrimination attorneys at Zuckerman Law recently published a guide that lays out answers to common questions asked by employees who are faced with sexual harassment or retaliation at work.

The guide provides “plain English” answers to common questions about sexual harassment, including:

  • Must the harassment come from my supervisor?
  • What defenses may my employer use against my sexual harassment claim?
  • What is the deadline for filing a sexual harassment complaint?
  • How do I prove my workplace is a “hostile work environment”?
  • What damages and remedies are available to victims of sexual harassment?

Download our Sexual Harassment Survival Guide for Employees.

Image of Race Discrimination Attorneys

Civil Rights Act: Promise Unfulfilled

Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to achieve equality of employment opportunities.  More than half a century later, race discrimination remains all too prevalent, and systemic discrimination bars minorities from advancing in the workplace.  We are deeply committed to achieving the promise of the Civil Rights Act by vigorously combatting race discrimination in the workplace.

U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have named Zuckerman Law a Tier 1 firm in Litigation – Labor and Employment in the Washington DC metropolitan area.  Contact our race discrimination lawyers today to find out how we can help you in a workplace discrimination case. 

To schedule a preliminary consultation about race discrimination, call us at 202-262-8959, or click here.

Unacceptable Racial Glass Ceiling Discrimination Persists

As discussed in a recent article The Black Ceiling: Why African-American Women Aren’t Making It to the Top in Corporate America, there is an unacceptable glass ceiling preventing African Americans from rising to the highest ranks of American companies.  Not a single African American woman is CEO of a Fortune 500 company.  And there is just one woman on Fortune’s list of the 50 Most Powerful Women in Business.  Nearly 80% of the boards of directors of Fortunate 500 companies are male, and just 19 African Americans serve on Fortune 500 boards.

And a study performed by the Northwestern Institute for Policy Research found that in 2015, white applicants were roughly a third more likely to receive invitations for first-round interviews than African-Americans with equal job qualifications.

There is also a glass ceiling at the powerful large law firms that serve Fortune 500 companies.  According to a 2017 survey performed by the National Association of Women Lawyers, women of color comprise just 2% of equity partners at the top 200 law firms.

Forms of Race Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Race discrimination can take many forms, including:

  • Termination of employment;
  • Denial of a promotion;
  • Racial slurs in the workplace;
  • Pay disparity; and
  • Denial of training opportunities.

In 2018, JPMorgan Chase & Co. paid $24 million to settle claims for racial discrimination. The lawsuit alleged “uniform and national in scope” discrimination against African-American financial advisors, such as assigning them to poorer bank branches, understaffing them, and failing to include them in a program for richer clients.

Proving Race Discrimination

Race discrimination can be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence.  Direct evidence consists of a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged adverse employment action sufficient to support a finding that an illegitimate criterion motivated the action.  An example of direct evidence is an admission by a manager that he fired an employee due to the employee’s race.

Direct evidence is rare, so most race discrimination cases are proven through circumstantial evidence, typically using the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under McDonnell Douglas, the discrimination plaintiff must show:

  1. plaintiff is a member of a protected class;
  2. plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; and
  3. the unfavorable action gives rise to an inference of discrimination.

“[A]n individual plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by `showing actions taken by the employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on a discriminatory criterion illegal under’ Title VII.” `not intended to be an inflexible rule.'” Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338, 1353 (2015)

Once the employee establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.   Once the employer meets that burden of production, the plaintiff has an opportunity to prove that the reasons offered by the defendant were not the true reasons for the adverse action.  This is also knows as the burden to show pretext.  Evidence of pretext may include “the employer’s better treatment of similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected group, its inconsistent or dishonest explanations, its deviation from established procedures or criteria, or the employer’s pattern of poor treatment of other employees in the same protected group as the plaintiff, or other relevant evidence that a jury could reasonably conclude evinces an illicit motive.” Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

There is no requirement to prove retaliatory animus: If a plaintiff can show that she was fired under suspicious circumstances and that her employer lied about its reasons for firing her, the factfinder may infer that the employer’s undisclosed retaliatory animus was the actual cause of her termination.  Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).

Title VII and Section 1981 used together can help win your race discrimination case

Two important federal laws protect employees from racial discrimination:  Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. 1981 (Section 1981).  Courts often analyze legal claims under these two statutes in a very similar, if not identical, fashion and the same set of facts can be pursued under both laws simultaneously.

Congress and the Supreme Court, however, have made it clear that, while these two statutes are similar, they remain separate and distinct causes of actions.  It is thus important to know how the differences between Title VII and Section 1981 can help, or potentially sink, your case.

  • Title VII, but not Section 1981, prohibits disparate impact discrimination
  • Section 1981 does not require an EEOC charge to be filed
  • Section 1981 has a longer statute of limitations than Title VII
  • Section 1981 does not have any cap on damages
  • Section 1981 applies only to race discrimination while Title VII covers more classes of people

Read here for more information.

Top-Rated Race Discrimination Attorneys Serving Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC

We are are deeply committed to combatting race discrimination in the workplace and achieving the long overdue unfulfilled promise of the Civil Rights Act.

Contact us today to find out how we can help you with a race discrimination case.  To schedule a preliminary consultation with an experienced discrimination lawyer, call us at 202-262-8959, or click here.

 

Image of Whistleblower Protection Act Individual Right of Action Appeals

What is Required to Prove a Violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act?

To prove whistleblower retaliation under the WPA, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8), a whistleblower must establish the following by preponderant evidence:

  • A protected disclosure (aka the whistleblowing)
  • A personnel action is taken, threatened, or not taken after the protected disclosure;
  • The relevant officials knew of the protected disclosure; and
  • A causal connection (contributing factor) exists between the disclosure and the personnel action

If the whistleblower meets this test, then the burden shifts to the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence—which is significantly more onerous than the preponderance standard—that it would have taken the same action against the employee even if they had never blown the whistle.

If you are seeking representation in a Whistleblower Protection Act case, call us at 202-262-8959.

Download our guide to the Whistleblower Protection Act:

What disclosures are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act?

The WPA protects federal employees against retaliation for making any disclosure that the employee reasonably believes evidences:

  • a violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
  • gross mismanagement;
  • a gross waste of funds;
  • an abuse of authority;
  • a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or
  • censorship related to research, analysis, or technical information that cause, or will cause, one of the above harms

Passed in 2012, the WPEA clarifies that a disclosure is protected even if the disclosure:

  • is made to a person, including a supervisor, who participated in the wrongdoing disclosed;
  • revealed previously disclosed information;
  • is made by an employee who may have other motives for making the disclosure;
  • is made while the employee was off duty;
  • is about events that occurred a long time ago; or
  • is made during the employee’s normal course of duties, provided the employee can show that the personnel action was taken “in reprisal for” the disclosure.

What options are available to pursue a Whistleblower Protection Act Case?

An employee who believes a federal employer has unlawfully retaliated against him or her has several options:

  • The employee may file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). If OSC finds that the employee suffered retaliation, then it reports its findings to the MSPB and can petition the Board, on behalf of the employee, to correct the agency’s retaliatory action.
  • If OSC finds no wrongdoing or retaliation, then the employee may file an individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal before the MSPB within 60 days of OSC’s determination. The employee can appeal the Board’s decision to the relevant federal Court of Appeals.
  • The employee may appeal a retaliatory personnel action directly to the MSPB if the employee is eligible to do so and the retaliatory action is one of the personnel actions directly appealable to the MSPB.

It is important for employees to know that they may choose only one of the following options when they want to challenge an adverse action that:

  • An appeal to the MSPB under 5 U.S.C. § 7701;
  • A grievance filed under a collective bargaining agreement (for union employees); or
  • A complaint filed with OSC, which can be followed by an Individual Right of Action (IRA) to the MSPB

Whichever option is chosen first is deemed an “election of remedies,” which means that the other two options can no longer be used.

This election of remedies does not, however, affect the right to pursue an EEO complaint (an EEO and OSC complaint may be pursued at the same time).

What is the Office of Special Counsel?

The OSC is an independent, federal investigative and prosecutorial agency.  Its primary mission is to safeguard employee rights and hold government accountable, primarily by protecting employees from whistleblower retaliation

What is the Merit Systems Protection Board?

The MSPB is a quasi-judicial agency that adjudicates employee appeals and provides independent review and due process for employees and agencies.

What is an Individual Right of Action Appeal?

There are two ways in which an employee can bring an IRA appeal at the MSPB: 1) if OSC does not seek corrective action within 120 days of the filing of the complaint; or 2) if OSC closes its investigation of the complaint, the complainant has 65 days from the date of the written notice, or 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice, to file an IRA appeal.  5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). The regulation incorporates the presumption of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(l) that a letter is received 5 days after mailing as applicable to the 60-day deadline for filing specified in the statute.

Prior to the enactment of the WPEA, the IRA appeal option was available only for  § 2302(b)(8) claims.  The WPEA expanded IRA appeals to cases brought under the following provisions of § 2302(b)(9):

  • 2302(b)(9)(A)(i) – exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8);
  • 2302(b)(9)(B) – testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation;
  • 2302(b)(9)(C) – cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General of an agency, or the Special Counsel; and
  • 2302(b)(9)(D) – refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law.

The IRA appeal option is not available for claims brought under § 2302(b)(9)(A)(ii),  i.e., exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation other than with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8).

In an IRA appeal, the Board may consider only the charges of whistleblowing that the appellant raised before OSC, i.e., the appellant must prove exhaustion of administrative remedies.  Therefore, if the complainant is subjected to additional retaliation after filing an initial complaint with OSC, it is critical to document efforts to supplement the initial complaint.

An AJ’s inquiry into exhaustion of administrative remedies is limited to identifying (1) the whistleblowing disclosures and (2) the personnel actions that the appellant raised before OSC.  The appellant must “give the [OSC] sufficient basis to pursue an investigation which might have led to corrective action.”  Ward v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 981 F.2d 521, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Knollenberg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 953 F.2d 623, 626 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

IRA appeals are reviewed de novo, i.e., the IRA appeal must be viewed independently from OSC’s decision to close the complaint.  Section 1221(f) of title 5, United States Code, expressly states: “[A] decision to terminate an investigation under subchapter II may not be considered in any action or other proceeding under this section.”  5 U.S.C. § 1221(f) (emphasis added).  Section 1214 contains a similar prohibition:

A determination by the Special Counsel under this paragraph shall not be cited or referred to in any proceeding under this paragraph or any other administrative or judicial proceeding for any purpose, without the consent of the person submitting the allegation of a prohibited personnel practice.

5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3) (emphasis added).  Under this statutory scheme, OSC’s internal decisions regarding an appellant’s complaint have no legal relevance to whether he or she may proceed with an IRA appeal.  Congress took pains to protect OSC’s internal deliberations regarding the disposition of a complaint from Board review “to ensure that a whistleblower is not ‘penalized’ or ‘prejudiced’ in any way by OSC’s decision not to pursue a case.”  Costin v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 64 M.S.P.R. 517, 531 (1994).  The MSPB can only order an appellant to produce OSC’s determination letter if the AJ explains why the letter is necessary and provides the opportunity to consent.  See 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(2)(B); Bloom v. Dep’t of Army, 101 M.S.P.R. 79, 84 (2006).

What is required to prove jurisdiction in an IRA appeal?

An IRA appellant must show exhaustion of administrative remedies and make non-frivolous allegations that the appellant made a protected disclosure that was a contributing factor to the personnel action taken or proposed.  Recently the Federal Circuit clarified that at the pleading stage, a MSPB AJ should not weight the evidence:

This court has made clear that the MSPB must “separate the issue of jurisdiction from that of the merits of a petitioner’s case.” Spencer v. Dep’t of the Navy, 327 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). And on several occasions, we have identified instances where the MSPB did not meet this requirement in the past. See id. We reiterate that at the jurisdictional stage, a petitioner need only assert non-frivolous allegations—allegations that are not “vague, conclusory, or facially insufficient,” and that the petitioner “reasonably believe[s]” to be true—of a protected disclosure that was a contributing factor to a reprisal. Johnston v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A petitioner’s credibility including, as in this case, consideration of affidavits submitted by an allegedly retaliatory supervisor claiming no knowledge of the petitioner’s protected disclosure or motivation to retaliate, “relate[s] to the merits of [the] claim.” Id. at 911, 912 n.3; see J.A. 6 (improperly considering affidavit of Mr. Piccolo’s supervisor at the jurisdictional stage). Non-frivolous allegations suffice at the jurisdictional stage precisely because, as here, the petitioner may not have access to all relevant documents or have been provided an opportunity to conduct discovery. See Johnston, 518 F.3d at 912; see Pet’r’s Original Br. 11-15, ECF No. 9 (detailing outstanding requests under the Freedom of Information Act). We have also required that petitioners in IRA appeals be provided “notice of deficiencies before a claim is finally dismissed” and “an opportunity to cure” their pleadings where specific details are “readily available.” Cahill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 821 F.3d 1370, 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Piccolo v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2016-2374 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

What damages are available under the Whistleblower Protection Act?

A prevailing whistleblower can recover:

  • lost wages,
  • attorney’s fees,
  • equitable relief (for example, reinstatement, rescinding a suspension, or modifying a performance evaluation), and
  • uncapped compensatory damages (emotional-distress damages).

In addition, a whistleblower can recover fees, costs, or damages reasonably incurred due to a retaliatory investigation. Retaliatory investigations can take many forms, such as unwarranted referrals for criminal or civil investigations or extraordinary reviews of time and attendance records.

Does the Whistleblower Protection Act protect employees who exercise an appeal or grievance right?

Yes. Under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9), agency officials may not take, fail to take, threaten to take a personnel action because an employee:

  • Filed a complaint, grievance, or appeal;
  • Testified or helped some else with one of these activities;
  • Cooperated with or disclosed information to OSC or an Inspector General; or
  • Refused to obey an order that would require the employee to violate a law

KEY TIP:  whistleblowers should generally follow the doctrine of “obey now, grieve later”—unless carrying out an order would violate a statute, place the employee in clear physical danger, or result in irreparable harm

  • After carrying out the order on an interim basis, the employee can then blow the whistle to agency officials, an OIG, OSC, the media, or Congress. Or the employee can address the concern through an agency grievance procedure.

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation for exercising whistleblowing, complaint, appeal, or grievance rights under Section 2302(b)(9), an employee must prove the following four elements by preponderant evidence:

  • the employee, or someone identified with the employee, engaged in a protected activity;
  • the agency took, failed to take, or threatened to take a personnel action;
  • the official responsible for the personnel action knew about the employee’s protected activity; and
  • A causal connection existed between the protected activity and the personnel action.

The WPEA split Section 2302(b)(9)(A) claims into two subcategories:

  • Section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i). This subsection involves the exercise of appeal, complaint, or grievance rights that deal with remedying a violation of Section 2302(b)(8).
  • Section 2302(b)(9)(A)(ii). This subsection involves the exercise of appeal, complaint, or grievance rights that do not deal with remedying a violation of Section 2302(b)(8).
  • The elements for proving these two subcategories are the same, but the standard for proving causation differs depending on the type of case. Appeal rights also differ between these subcategories.

Hiring Experienced Whistleblower Protection Act Lawyers

best sexual harassment attorneys Washington DC Maryland VirginiaZuckerman Law has represented whistleblowers before the Office of Special Counsel, Offices of Inspectors General, and Congressional oversight committees.  The firm is uniquely qualified to represent whistleblowers in the federal government because two of the firm’s attorneys served in senior roles at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

  • Eric Bachman served as Deputy Special Counsel, Litigation and Legal Affairs, OSC, where he spearheaded an initiative to combat whistleblower retaliation at the Department of Veterans Affairs.  During Bachman’s tenure at OSC, the number of favorable actions for whistleblowers increased by over 50% agency-wide.
  • Jason Zuckerman served as Senior Legal Advisor to the Special Counsel at OSC, where he worked on implementation of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and several high-profile investigations.

If you are seeking representation in a whistleblower protection case, click here, or call us at 202-262-8959 to schedule a free preliminary consultation.

How do I file a claim under the Whistleblower Protection Act?

What does the Whistleblower Protection Act Prohibit?

What remedies or damages are available under the Whistleblower Protection Act?

 

Image of Top-Rated Maryland Gender Discrimination Attorneys

Top-Rated Maryland Gender Discrimination Lawyers

Our Maryland gender discrimination lawyers are dedicated to securing justice for victims of gender discrimination in Maryland.  Eric Bachman, Chair of the Firm’s Discrimination Practice, is a pioneer in using civil rights laws to combat discrimination in the workplace.  His wins include a $100 million settlement in a disparate impact Title VII class action and a $16 million class action settlement against a major grocery chain.  See the December 2018 Women2.com interview of Eric Bachman: A Legal Leg for Women to Stand on in the Workplace.

If you have suffered discrimination, contact us today to find out how we can help you.

To schedule a preliminary consultation, click here or call us at (202) 769-1681.  

We handle a wide variety of employment matters in Maryland, including claims of:

Click here to see our videos answering frequently asked questions about discrimination and retaliation.

 

   

Prevalence of Gender Discrimination

According to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey, four-in-ten working women (42%) in the United States believe that have faced gender discrimination in the workplace,  Additional findings include:

  • “One-in-four working women (25%) say they have earned less than a man who was doing the same job; one-in-twenty working men (5%) say they have earned less than a female peer.”
  • “Women are roughly four times as likely as men to say they have been treated as if they were not competent because of their gender (23% of employed women versus 6% of men), and they are about three times as likely as men to say they have experienced repeated small slights at work because of their gender (16% versus 5%).”

Gender Discrimination in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Jobs

According to a study released by the Pew Research Center in January 2018, gender discrimination remains prevalent in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) jobs.  In particular, Pew surveyed more than 4,900 workers in the U.S in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), and found that 50 percent of women reported experiencing discrimination in the workplace.  The percentage was significantly higher in majority-male workplaces.  According to the study, “some 74% of women in computer jobs, such as software development or data science, say they have experienced discrimination because of their gender.”

Maryland Sexual Harassment Attorneys

Recent sexual harassment scandals underscore the fact that sexual harassment is prevalent in the workplace.  And according to a recent EEOC report, approximately 40% of women have experienced one or more specific sexually-based behaviors in the workplace, such as unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion.

Despite companies adopting “zero tolerance” policies, too many powerful officers, managers and supervisors engage in harassment and inflict serious harm on the careers and reputations of their victims.  We are committed to aggressively combatting harassment and holding perpetrators accountable.

Based on lessons learned from representing victims of sexual harassment, we have developed a Sexual Harassment Survival Guide for Employees, which can be downloaded for free on our website.

SexualHarassmentSurvivalGuide_sexualharassmentattorneys

If you are confronting harassment in the workplace, it is important to understand your rights.  Though every case is unique, we hope that the following answers to common questions about harassment rights and remedies are helpful.

Leading employment lawyer Eric Bachman is frequently quoted in the media about the rights of victims of harassment and workplace discrimination, including in these recent articles:

Although every case is unique, the following frequently asked questions provide an over view of the key legal issues that often arise in sexual harassment cases.

  1. Can an employer be held liable for customer sexual harassment?
  2. What damages or remedies are available for victims of sexual harassment?
  3. What is a hostile work environment?
  4. Can a single incident of harassment suffice to establish liability?
  5. How do I prove my workplace is a hostile work environment?
  6. What is quid pro quo harassment?
  7. What is workplace sexual harassment?
  8. In a sexual harassment case, does it matter if it is a supervisor versus a co-worker who is harassing me?
  9. Who is a “supervisor” in sexual harassment cases?
  10. How can employees combat harassment at work?
  11. What is the deadline for filing a sex harassment or retaliation claim?
  12. What type of retaliation is prohibited against an employee who reports unlawful discrimination or harassment?
  13. Is an employer prohibited from retaliating against an employee because the employee reported harassment?
  14. What is an employer’s affirmative defense in a sex harassment case?

Damages or Remedies for Gender Discrimination

More than half a century after Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits gender discrimination, too many women continue to face a glass ceiling blocking them from earning the promotions and other advancement opportunities that they have earned.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the number of female CEO’s among Fortune 500 companies has dwindled to just 5.4% (27 out of 500). This statistic alone helps illustrate the persistent presence of glass ceiling / promotion discrimination within corporate America.

Although the precise structure of a glass ceiling can vary from company to company, its discriminatory effects are undeniable and often devastating to those unable to break through it.  And according to one report, the average female employee loses $10,000 per year due to the wage gap between men and women.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as other federal and state laws, make it illegal for an employer to use promotion practices that create a glass ceiling.  Cases brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and others make clear that companies must proactively address promotion discrimination issues.  For example, the EEOC sued Outback Steakhouse about the company’s glass ceiling that prevented women from being promoted.  The class action case ultimately settled for $19 million in damages.

If you win your case at trial or settle with the company beforehand, several types of remedies may be available.  For example:

  • Back pay – the difference between what you should have been paid if promoted and what the company actually paid you;
  • Compensatory damages – damages to address emotional distress, reputational harm, etc. that you suffered as a result of the company’s refusal to promote you;
  • Punitive damages – damages to punish the company if it acted with malice or reckless indifference; and/or
  • Make-whole relief – placing you into the higher level position you were unlawfully denied.

To learn more about gender glass ceiling discrimination, download our guide Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Tips for Combatting Promotion Discrimination:

Hiring a Top-Rated Maryland Gender Discrimination Lawyer

Hiring a proven and effective gender discrimination lawyer is critical to obtaining the maximum recovery in a sexual harassment case.  Eric Bachman, Chair of the Firm’s Discrimination Practice, has substantial experience litigating precedent-setting individual and class action discrimination cases.   His wins include a $100 million settlement in a disparate impact Title VII class action and a $16 million class action settlement against a major grocery chain.

Having served as Special Litigation Counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and as lead or co-counsel in numerous jury trials, Bachman is trial-tested and ready to fight for you to obtain the relief that you deserve.

Bachman writes frequently on topics related to promotion discrimination, harassment, and other employment discrimination issues at the Glass Ceiling Discrimination Blog.

U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have named Zuckerman Law a Tier 1 firm in Litigation – Labor and Employment in the Washington DC metropolitan area.

We are located in Chevy Chase, Maryland at 5425 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 600 Chevy Chase, MD 20815. To schedule a preliminary consultation, click here or call us at (202) 769-1681.
      best maryland employment lawyers

Maryland Glass Ceiling Discrimination Attorneys

Maryland Sexual Harassment Attorneys

Know Your Rights: Gender Discrimination and Retaliation

Discrimination

Retaliation

Employment Lawyers Representing Employees in Maryland

chevy chase maryland employment lawyers

Our office is located in Chevy Chase, but we represent employees in discrimination and other employed-related litigation in several Maryland cities, towns and municipalities, including:

  • Bethesda 
  • Chevy Chase
  • Rockville
  • Silver Spring
  • Kensington
  • Frederick
  • College Park
  • Frederick
  • Columbia
  • Gaithersburg
  • Garrett Park
  • Glen Echo
  • Greenbelt
  • Greensboro
  • Kensington
  • Laurel
  • New Carrollton
  • Somerset
  • Takoma Park
SexualHarassment_Infographic_draft

Zuckerman Law has outlined what is required to prove gender discrimination when filing your case. Visit the page  “how to prove gender discrimination”

ABOUT ZUCKERMAN LAW

Summary

We are a Washington, DC-based law firm that represents whistleblowers in whistleblower rewards and whistleblower retaliation matters and litigates discrimination claims on behalf of employees in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The firm is dedicated to zealously advocating on behalf of our clients to achieve justice and accountability.

  • Professionalism
    (5)
  • Honesty
    (5)
  • Perseverance
    (5)
Overall
5
Sending
User Review
5 (1 vote)