Top-Rated Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia gender discrimination lawyers
Hiring a proven and effective advocate is critical to obtaining the maximum recovery in an employment discrimination case.
We are committed to zealously representing victims of discrimination and retaliation under federal and state anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws, including in claims of:
- Glass ceiling discrimination;
- Sexual harassment;
- Gender discrimination, including Equal Pay Act claims;
- LGBT discrimination;
- Religious discrimination;
- Disability discrimination;
- Pregnancy discrimination; and
- Age discrimination
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 us today at 202-262-8959 to find out how we can help you.
Federal Employment Lawyers: Serving Federal Employees in Maryland, Washington DC, and Virginia
When a federal employee is facing proposed disciplinary action or an adverse action, there is a lot at stake — their career, reputation, and financial security. Therefore, it is critical to gather the evidence and present it in a persuasive manner to either avoid the proposed discipline entirely or mitigate the discipline.
The experienced federal employment attorneys at Zuckerman Law represent federal employees during all stages of the disciplinary process. Two of our attorneys served in senior leadership positions at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, where they oversaw investigations of thousands of prohibited personnel practice complaints.
Adverse Actions and Disciplinary Actions
Actions directly appealable to the MSPB, also known as “adverse actions” include:
- a removal;
- a suspension for more than 14 days;
- a reduction in grade;
- a reduction in pay; and
- a furlough of 30 days or less.
Right to Respond to Proposed Adverse Action
Before taking an adverse action, the agency must give the employee at least thirty days’ advance written notice and identify the specific reasons for the proposed adverse action.
Right to Respond to Proposed Disciplinary Action
When you are notified of a proposed disciplinary action, you have due process rights, including:
- The right to review the evidence upon which the proposed disciplinary action s based.
- The right to respond.
Preparing an Effective Response to Proposed Disciplinary Action or Adverse Action
Once an agency has proposed to take a personnel action, it can be challenging to persuade the agency to reverse its decision. We have found that the following techniques can be effective:
- We promptly gather statements or affidavits from credible witnesses.
- We identify evidence rebutting the basis for the proposed disciplinary action.
Federal, state, and local employment discrimination laws provide a range of remedies to victims of sexual harassment, including the recovery of emotional distress damages and punitive damages.
The table below identifies some of the larger verdicts or public settlements in sexual harassment cases in recent years. These cases were handled by a variety of laws firms.
Choosing the right lawyer for your sexual harassment case can make a major difference in the relief you secure. Contact us today for a confidential consultation at 202-262-8959.
| Verdict or settlement | Case name, court, and year | Statute and claims | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| $168 million | Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West (E.D. Cal. 2012) | Title VII California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) * Sex harassment * Retaliation * Discriminat- ion | A 45-year-old surgical physician’s assistant brought a lawsuit against Catholic Healthcare West claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, harassment, and wrongful termination. Ms. Chopourian was subjected to inappropriate remarks, sexual advances, and derogatory comments. When she complained about suffering mistreatment at the hands of other male employees, the defendant retaliated against her through defamation, false accusations, and unwarranted discipline. |
| $40 million (reduced from $95 million verdict) | Alford v. Aaron Rents, Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2011) | Title VII Illinois Human Rights Act * Sex harassment * Retaliation | Ms. Alford began working at Aaron’s as a customer service representative. Shortly thereafter, a male employee Moore began intentionally and inappropriately touching her, calling her degrading pet names, and making uninvited advances. Moore sexually harassed and sexually assaulted her on numerous occasions including an incident in the office restrooms where he pushed her onto the floor pulled her shirt up and masturbated on her. She ollowed company policy and tried to contact a sexual harassment hotline. She also spoke to multiple managers but her complaints went unnoticed. She was persecuted at work, feared for her safety, and was not given equal opportunities when applying for a promotion. |
| $20 million | Carlson v. Ailes, (N.J. Super. Ct. 2016) | NYC Human Rights Law * Sexual harassment * unfair compensation * retaliation | Ms. Carlson, a former Fox News Anchor filed a lawsuit directly at her former boss and the CEO and Chairman of Fox News for sexual harassment. Her claims included retaliation, unfair compensation, sexual harassment, and emotional distress. She filed an internal complaint against Steven Doocy for disparate treatment and harassment. Mr. Ailes retaliated against her by giving her less prestigious assignments and reducing her compensation. During this time, he alluded to restoring her status at Fox News in exchange for sex. She was awarded $20 million and Fox issued an apology on Mr. Ailes behalf. Following the lawsuit, other women came forward alleging Mr. Ailes committed multiple acts of sexual harassment. |
| $11.6 million | Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, L.P. (S.D.N.Y 2007) | Title VII New York State Human Rights Law New York City Human Rights Law * Sex harassment * Discriminat- ion * Retaliation | Ms. Sanders had joined the Knicks Basketball Operations in 2000. Her consistently positive performance reviews and hard work led to a promotion in 2002. In 2003, Isiah Thomas joined the organization as President of Basketball Operations. Ms. Sanders and Mr. Thomas met to discuss a conflict in their job responsibilities. Shortly thereafter, she received unwelcomed advances towards her and sexual harassment from Mr. Thomas. Other male employees and a basketball player were alleged to have made inappropriate comments about her and other female employees. Ms. Sanders brought suit for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. |
| $10 million | EEOC v. Dial Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2003) | Title VII Illinois Human Rights Act *Sex harassment * Discriminat- ion * Retaliation | Beverley Allen, an employee at Dial, filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC against a co-worker Paul Allen. Her complaint alleged she was sexually harassed for 3 years between 1992-95 and that the company took retaliatory action against her after she reported sexual harassment. Furthermore, the complaint alleges Dial took no action to prevent future incidences and to create a friendly work environment. |
| $8.4 million (reduced from $10.6 million verdict) | Ingraham v. UBS Financial (Jackson County, MO 2011) | Title VII Missouri Human Rights Act * Sex harassment * Discriminat- ion * Retaliation | In 2008, Ms. Ingraham was subjected to sexual harassment at the hands of defendant and an employee James DeGoler. She filed a charge with the MCHR against UBS and DeGoler. UBS investigated the matter and decided there was no merit to her complaints. Later, Ms. Ingraham complained about sexual harassment and retaliation and upon UBS’s second investigation they came to a similar conclusion that there was no merit to her complaint. Ms. Ingraham decided to file a lawsuit in Jackson County and complained of sexual harassment, discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. |
| $8 million | Neal v. D.C. Dep't Corrections (D.D.C. 1997) | Title VII 42 U.S.C. 1983 * Sex harassment * Retaliation | Plaintiffs include 7 current and former female employees and one male employee. The complaint alleges sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, lost wages, and lost promotion opportunities. Plaintiffs alleged their employer retaliated against employees who complained of or reported sexual harassment. Moreover, they alleged the department was culpable of four categories of illegal behavior: 1) quid pro quo sexual harassment 2) sexual favoritism 3) Hostile Work Environment 4) Retaliation |
| $3.5 million (reduced from $7.1 million) | Weeks v. Baker & Mackenzie (Cal. App. Ct. 1998) | Title VII California FEHA * Sex harassment | Ms. Rena Weeks filed a lawsuit against her employer and a partner, Martin Greenstein, at the firm for engaging in sexual harassment. Ms. Weeks was subjected to uninvited sexual advances toward her. He would touch her inappropriately, stuff candies in her breast pocket, and comment on her appearance. Ms. Weeks was emotionally distraught and sought help from the law firm. His behavior had been ignored many times before and no strict action was taken. Upon filing a complaint with the EEOC and filing a lawsuit thereafter, Ms. Weeks learned Mr. Greenstein had a history of sexually harassing female employees at the firm. |
| $3.5 million | Frieders v. City of Glendale (Cal. Super. Ct. 2003) | Title VII California FEHA * Sex harassment * Retaliation | Three police officers filed a lawsuit against the Glendale Police Department and the City of Glendale for sexual harassment they were subjected to and retaliation for filing complaints. |
Hiring an experienced sexual harassment lawyer
Hiring a proven and effective sexual harassment attorney is critical to obtaining the maximum recovery in an employment discrimination case.
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 us today to find out how we can help you.
To schedule a confidential consultation, click here or call us at 202-262-8959.
Sexual Harassment Lawyer Client Reviews
We pride ourselves on our commitment to exceptional client service, including our prompt response to all client inquiries and zealous advocacy for victims of harassment. Recently Avvo awarded Jason Zuckerman its Client Choice Award based on client reviews. The following two reviews were provided by former clients of Jason Zuckerman concerning sexual harassment matters:
“I truly can’t say enough good things about Jason and his team – they are incredibly effective, professional, and consistently wonderful to work with, even in very high-pressure circumstances. Jason and his colleagues were exceptionally patient with and responsive to my concerns, consulting with me on every step of the process and explaining different options. Beyond their impeccable legal representation and client advocacy, I also felt personally cared for and supported during what was a particularly nightmarish experience of workplace harassment. When needed, they also devoted significant extra time and effort to my case to ensure that my interests were protected. I am incredibly grateful for their representation and wholeheartedly recommend Zuckerman Law to anyone seeking justice in employment-related matters.”
“When I sought out a DC-based attorney to represent me, I expected a competent attorney who would get me through my sexual harassment lawsuit. What I didn’t expect was to find someone like Jason: a truly outstanding attorney who made me feel like a priority, paid close attention to detail, and brought enormous expertise to the table. I chose to hire Jason to represent me after consulting seven other lawyers — and from day one, Jason was the only one who made it clear that he actually cared about me and my case. I cannot be happier that I chose Jason. He represented me with professionalism and fearlessness every step of the way. Jason always made me feel like a priority, even though he was busy with other cases/clients simultaneously. He never rushed me or pressured me, and kept me “in the loop” the entire time while we were dealing with the opposing side.”
See more reviews here.
Guide for Victims of Sexual Harassment
Combatting Sexual Harassment: Know Your Rights
- Can an employer be held liable for customer sexual harassment?
- What damages or remedies are available for victims of sexual harassment?
- What is a hostile work environment?
- Can a single incident of harassment suffice to establish liability?
- How do I prove my workplace is a hostile work environment?
- What is quid pro quo harassment?
- What is workplace sexual harassment?
- In a sexual harassment case, does it matter if it is a supervisor versus a co-worker who is harassing me?
- Who is a “supervisor” in sexual harassment cases?
- How can employees combat harassment at work?
- What is the deadline for filing a sex harassment or retaliation claim?
- What type of retaliation is prohibited against an employee who reports unlawful discrimination or harassment?
- Is an employer prohibited from retaliating against an employee because the employee reported harassment?
- What is an employer’s affirmative defense in a sex harassment case?
If you have original information about a cryptocurrency scheme that violates SEC or CFTC rules, email us through the contact page on our website to schedule a consultation about a potential whistleblower claim.
Virginia Lawyers Representing Whistleblowers in Whistleblower Rewards and Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
Our experienced Virginia whistleblower protection lawyers represent whistleblowers in Virginia under Virginia and federal whistleblower protection laws, including in claims under these laws:
- Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law;
- Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act;
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
- Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law;
- False Claims Act;
- NDAA Whistleblower Protection Law;
- SEC whistleblower-reward program;
- Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act; and
- IRS tax fraud whistleblower-reward program.
Contact us today to find out how a leading Virginia whistleblower law firm can help maximize your recovery in a Virginia whistleblower retaliation or whistleblower rewards matter.
Click here to read reviews from clients that we have represented in whistleblower rewards and whistleblower retaliation matters.
To find out if you have a whistleblower claim in Virginia, contact Jason Zuckerman at (202) 262-8959 or Dallas Hammer to schedule a confidential consultation.
- Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law
- What laws protect whistleblowers in Virginia?
- Are Whistleblowers in Virginia Eligible for Whistleblower Rewards or Bounties?
Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law
Whistleblowers in Virginia are now protected against retaliation under HB798, Virginia’s whistleblower protection law, which authorizes a whistleblower to bring a civil action seeking injunctive relief, reinstatement, and uncapped compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration.
The scope of prohibited retaliation under Virginia’s new whistleblower protection law is broad. It prohibits an employer from discharging, disciplining, threatening, discriminating against, or penalizing an employee, or taking other retaliatory action regarding an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because of the employee’s protected conduct. Protected conduct includes:
- Reporting in good faith a violation of any federal or state law or regulation to a supervisor or to any governmental body or law enforcement official;
- Being requested by a governmental body or law enforcement official to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry;
- Refusing to engage in a criminal act that would subject the employee to criminal liability;
- Refusing an employer’s order to perform an action that violates any federal or state law or regulation when the employee informs the employer that the order is being refused for that reason; or
- Providing information to or testifying before any governmental body or law enforcement official conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any alleged violation by the employer of federal or state law or regulation.
HB798 clarifies that it does not:
- Authorize an employee to make a disclosure of data otherwise protected by law or any legal privilege;
- Permit an employee to make statements or disclosures knowing that they are false or that they are in reckless disregard of the truth; or
- Permit disclosures that would violate federal or state law or diminish or impair the rights of any person to the continued protection of confidentiality of communications provided by common law.
There is no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies, i.e., an employee alleging retaliation can bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction within one year of the prohibited retaliatory action without first filing a claim with an administrative body. A prevailing whistleblower can obtain the following relief:
- An injunction to restrain continued violation;
- Reinstatement to the same or an equivalent position held before the employer took the retaliatory action; and/or
- Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, together with interest, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Virginia Whistleblower Realiation Law
2020 Legislative Session Heralds a Sea Change in Virginia Employment LawWhistleblower Protections for Virginia Employees of Federal Government Contractors
Our Virginia whistleblower lawyers represent employees of federal contractors and grantees that have suffered retaliation for opposing fraud on the government or raising concerns about:
- gross mismanagement of a Federal contract or grant;
- a gross waste of Federal funds;
- an abuse of authority relating to a Federal contract or grant; or
- a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a Federal contract.
To learn more about False Claims Act whistleblower protection, see our FCA whistleblower retaliation FAQ.
To learn more about remedies for whistleblowers at federal contractors or grantees, see our Practical Law Practice Note: Whistleblower Protections Under the National Defense Authorization Act.
Whistleblower Protection Lawyers Representing Virginia Whistleblowers
The Virginia whistleblower attorneys at Zuckerman Law have extensive experience representing executives and senior professionals at Virginia companies in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation claims, including CEOs and CFOs. We have recovered more than fifteen million dollars for SOX whistleblowers.
Drawing on our substantial experience representing corporate whistleblowers in Virginia, we have published a free guide to SOX titled Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection: Robust Protection for Corporate Whistleblowers.
The guide summarizes SOX whistleblower protections and offers concrete tips for Virginia corporate whistleblowers based on lessons learned during years of litigating SOX whistleblower cases.
Before hiring a lawyer for a high-stakes whistleblower case in Virginia, assess the lawyer’s reputation, prior experience representing whistleblowers, knowledge of whistleblower laws and prior results. And consider the experience of other whistleblowers working with that attorney. See our client testimonials by clicking here.
Recently some corporate whistleblowers have obtained significant recoveries in SOX whistleblower retaliation claims:
- Jury Awards Former Bio-Rad Counsel $11M in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Case
- Jury Awards Six Million Dollars to Whistleblower in Sarbanes-Oxley Case
- Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Obtains $2.7M in Front Pay
Virginia Wrongful Termination Lawyers
Though Virginia is an “at-will employment” jurisdiction, Virginia recognizes an exception to the at-will employment doctrine for cases of wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
To establish a claim for wrongful termination in Virginia, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
- The plaintiff was an at-will employee terminated by the defendant;
- The termination of the plaintiff’s employment violates a specific public policy; and
- There is a causal connection between the public policy violation and the employer’s decision to terminate the plaintiff.
Virginia law recognizes only three situations where public policy protects an employee:
- When an employer violated a policy enabling the exercise of an employee’s statutorily created right;
- When the public policy violated by the employer was explicitly expressed in the statute and the employee was clearly a member of that class of persons directly entitled to the protection enunciated by the public policy; or
- When the discharge was based on the employee’s refusal to engage in a criminal act. A claim under the third Bowman exception requires allegations that an employer “asked, or directed” an employee to engage in a criminal act, which could lead to the employee’s prosecution under Virginia law
In a Virginia wrongful termination action, it is critical for the plaintiff to identify with specificity the public policy that the employer violated by discharging the plaintiff. In a Virginia wrongful termination action, a plaintiff must identify a Virginia state statute that establishes the relevant public policy.
Virginia Whistleblower Damages
Virginia SOX Whistleblower Lawyers
We represent corporate whistleblowers in retaliation claims under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This FAQ provides an overview of key aspects of SOX whistleblower protection.
- Who is protected under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
- What whistleblowing disclosures are protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
- What are examples of SOX protected activity (protected whistleblowing)?
- Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protect whistleblowing about potential violations of federal securities laws?
- Are SOX whistleblowers required to show that their disclosures relate “definitively and specifically” to a federal securities law?
- Is an employee’s participation in an investigation of corporate fraud protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
- What are some types of proof to show that a disclosure is objectively reasonable?
- Is a whistleblower’s motive for engaging in protected activity relevant in a whistleblower protection case?
- Does Sarbanes-Oxley protected conduct require a showing of materiality?
- Is a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower required to prove fraud?
- Are disclosures made in the course of performing one’s job duties protected?
- Must a SOX whistleblower prove that the individual who made the final decision to take the adverse action has personal knowledge of the whistleblower’s protected activity?
- Does the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower law protect employees working outside the United States?
- What acts of retaliation are prohibited by the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law?
- Is constructive discharge a prohibited act of retaliation under SOX?
- Does SOX prohibit employers from “outing” confidential whistleblowers?
- Is retaliation that occurred outside of the statute of limitations period relevant evidence of retaliation?
- Does subjecting an employee to heightened scrutiny evidence retaliation?
- Does SOX prohibit post-termination retaliation?
- What is preemptive retaliation?
- What is a whistleblower’s burden to prove retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
- How can a whistleblower prove retaliation?
- Must a whistleblower prove retaliatory motive in a DOL whistleblower retaliation case?
- Why should courts be skeptical of an adverse employment action taken based on subjective criteria?
- What are some methods to prove pretext in retaliation and discrimination cases?
- Does a SOX whistleblower need to prove that the employer’s reason for the adverse action is untrue?
- What is the employer’s burden in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation case?
- Does subjecting an employee to heightened scrutiny evidence retaliation?
- What damages can a whistleblower recover under SOX?
- Does the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection law authorize emotional distress damages?
- What is front pay?
- Can OSHA order the reinstatement of a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower?
- If reinstatement is not feasible, can a judge award front pay in lieu of reinstatement?
- Does SOX authorize an award of punitive damages?
Virginia SEC Whistleblower Attorneys
The Virginia whistleblower lawyers at leading whistleblower law firm Zuckerman Law represent whistleblowers before the SEC disclosing fraud and other violations of federal securities laws, including:
- Accounting fraud;
- Investment and securities fraud;
- Insider trading;
- Foreign bribery and other FCPA violations;
- EB-5 investment fraud;
- Manipulation of a security’s price or volume;
- Fraudulent securities offerings and Ponzi schemes;
- Hedge fund fraud;
- Unregistered securities offerings;
- Investment adviser fraud;
- Broker-dealer anti-money laundering program violations;
- False or misleading statements about a company or investment;
- Inadequate internal controls;
- Deceptive non-GAAP financial measures; and
- Violations of auditor independence rules.
The SEC has jurisdiction over a wide range of industries and entities – both public and private. If you have information that may qualify for a SEC whistleblower reward, contact the experienced SEC whistleblower lawyers at Zuckerman Law for a free, confidential consultation.
Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act Lawyers
Whistleblower attorneys Eric Bachman and Jason Zuckerman, former senior officials at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, have released a guide for federal employee whistleblowers titled The Whistleblower Protection Act: Empowering Federal Employees to Root Out Waste, Fraud and Abuse and is available for download by clicking here.
The goal of the guide is to inform federal employees about the whistleblower rights and protections available under the Whistleblower Protection Act, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Actand the Follow the Rules Act.
Tips for Virginia SEC Whistleblowers About Qualifying for a SEC Whistleblower Award
5 Tips for SEC Whistleblowers and Lessons Learned from SEC Whistleblower Awards
See our column in Forbes: One Billion Reasons Why The SEC Whistleblower-Reward Program Is Effective.
SEC Whistleblower Program
Scheduling a Consultation with Zuckerman Law Virginia Whistleblower Lawyers
To schedule a confidential consultation, call us at (202) 262-8959.
Rd #350
Virginia SEC Whistleblower Lawyers
Resources for Whistleblowers at Federal Contractors and Grantees
Whistleblower Protections Under the National Defense Authorization Act (w-008-5821)- Boosting Contractor Employee Whistleblower Protections, Law 360 (December 2016)
- New Tools to Combat Whistleblower Retaliation, Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund Quarterly Review, Vol. 57 (October 2010)
- GAO Report Calls for Improvements in Government Contractor Whistleblower Protections
- False Claims Act Retaliation Decision Underscores Broad Scope of FCA Whistleblower Protection
- NDAA Provides Robust Whistleblower Protection
- What laws prohibit defense contractors from retaliating against whistleblowers?
- FAR Amendment Bars Agencies from Subsidizing Whistleblower Retaliation
- NDAA Contractor Whistleblower Protection Law Highly Effective in Rooting Out Fraud
- Congress Enacts Anti-Gag Provision in Cromnibus Spending Bill
- Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman Will Speak About False Claims Act Litigation at Taxpayers Against Fraud Conference
- Whistleblower Protections Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, Practical Law (October 2016)
- Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman Quoted in National Law Journal
- Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman Quoted About Federal Employee Whistleblower Rights
- Washington Post Quotes Whistleblower Attorney Jason Zuckerman About Chilling Effect of Insider Threat Program
- How to foster a more ethical culture
- Whistleblower Lawyer Jason Zuckerman Quoted About MacLean Whistleblower Protection Act Case
- Trump Questionnaire Raises Concerns About Retaliation Against Energy Department Staff
- CFPB official wants to silence a whistleblower before he can talk to Congress
Pipeline Safety Whistleblower Protection Law
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“PSIA”) protects employees who blow the whistle on a violation of any order, regulation, or law related to pipeline safety.
The PSIA protects an employee who:
- Provides information to an employer or the federal government about a violation of any order, regulation, or law related to pipeline safety;
- Refuses to participate in an activity that would violate any order, regulation, or law related to pipeline safety;
- Testifies before Congress, or at any federal or state proceeding related to pipeline security; or
- Commences or participates in any proceeding related to pipeline safety.
An employee who refuses to perform a task because of a pipeline safety concern need not establish that the allegedly illegal practice in which he has refused to engage actually violated a Federal law relating to pipeline safety. He need only prove that his refusal to work “was properly communicated to the employer and was based on a reasonable and good faith belief that engaging in that work was a practice made unlawful by a Federal law relating to pipeline safety.” See Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 6 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, 70 Fed. Reg. 17,889, 17,890-91 (Apr. 8, 2005)
Workers Protected Under the Pipeline Safety Whistleblower Protection Law
The PSIA applies to all employees, contractors, and subcontractors of pipeline facilities.
A “pipeline facility“ means a gas pipeline facility and a hazardous liquid pipeline facility. The regulations define a “gas pipeline facility“ to include “a pipeline, a right of way, a facility, a building, or equipment used in transporting gas or treating gas during its transportation” and a “hazardous liquid pipeline facility” to include a “pipeline, a right of way, a facility, a building, or equipment used or intended to be used in transporting hazardous liquid.”
Proving a Violation of Pipeline Safety Whistleblower Protection Law
To establish a violation of the PSIA whistleblower protection provision, the whistleblowers must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
- They engaged in protected conduct;
- The employer knew that they engaged in protected conduct;
- The employer took an adverse action; and
- The protected conduct was a contributing factor in the employer’s decision to take an adverse action against the whistleblower.
Prohibited Retaliation
The PSIA prohibits employers from discharging, disciplining or discriminating against a whistleblowing employee regarding pay, terms or privileges of employment. This includes blacklisting, termination, suspension, demotion, reduction in salary, failure to hire, or any act that would deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.
Remedies Available to Prevailing PSIA Whistleblowers
A prevailing PSIA whistleblower can recover:
- Reinstatement,
- Lost wages and benefits,
- Damages for emotional distress and anguish, humiliation, harm to reputation, and other non-economic harms, and
- Attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
Filing a Pipeline Safety Whistleblower Retaliation Case
A pipeline safety whistleblower retaliation complaint must be filed initially with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) within 180 days of when the whistleblower knew or should have known that their employer was taking an adverse action against them. OSHA investigates the complaint and issues findings, which become final after 60 days unless the plaintiff objects and requests a hearing.
Either party can appeal OSHA’s determination by requesting a de novo hearing before the DOL Office of Administrative Law Judge (OALJ), but an employer’s objection to an order of preliminary relief will not stay the order of reinstatement. Once a PSIA retaliation claim has been pending before the DOL for more than 180 days, the whistleblower can remove the claim to federal court and try the case before a jury. PSIA retaliation claims are exempt from mandatory arbitration.
To learn about whistleblower rights and protections, click here.
Pipeline Safety Whistleblower Protection Lawyers
The leading whistleblower protection lawyers at Zuckerman Law have extensive experience representing corporate whistleblowers. 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.
Call us today for a free confidential consultation about your pipeline safety whistleblower case. We can be reached at 202-262-8959 or by clicking here.
