Firm News

It is with the utmost sadness and grief that I advise you that my very good friend, colleague and revered mentor, Ernie Hadley, passed away quite suddenly.  I have said innumerable times that in my professional life, the single most enjoyable aspect has been the many, many times I have shared the podium with Ernie.   There was no second most enjoyable aspect, as the time with Ernie eclipsed every other professional experience.

 His wonderful wit and insight into the practice of law made every moment with him an immeasurably rewarding experience.  His optimism and professionalism were contagious.  He was generous with his time and served as a mentor to many of the lawyers in the firm as he was one of the finest legal writers I have ever known.  Perhaps his years as a journalist prior to turning to the law accounts for his remarkable ability to say in a few pages of a brief that which most of us required far more verbiage. 

 He was a founding director of the Federal Employment Law Training Group, author of numerous publications (including the bible of federal sector employment law, A Guide to Federal Sector Equal Employment Law and Practice) and among the most talented and entertaining presenter at conferences.  Ernie presented more than a thousand seminars, trainings, speeches and other presentations on various aspects of employment discrimination law and workplace rights and responsibility, including on the topics of prevention of workplace harassment, understanding the employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with a disability, creating and maintaining the workplace free from discrimination, and many other topics. 

Most importantly, he was a friend to everyone who knew him and was generous with his time and advice to up and coming EEO practitioners.  In recent years, Ernie mostly retired from the practice of law (although he still did seminars with us and helped lawyers in the firm as needed) and moved to Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, where he and his wife, Annie opened a small publishing firm, Nevermore Press, that concentrated on publishing the works of local fiction and nonfiction authors.  His friendship is something I will always cherish.  I will miss you greatly, Ernie.   – – Gary Gilbert

Partner Shannon Leary, Esq. was featured on Fox31 and Channel 2 news in Colorado regarding her recent victory before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ms. Leary along with Attorneys AJ Hill and Gary Gilbert represented nurses Kathy Bennett and Josephine Zahn in their complaint of sexual harassment against the Department of Veterans Affairs. Regarding the Administrative Judge’s favorable decision Ms. Leary said, “I hope that decisions like this will help people feel empowered to know that there are people who will listen to them even if it takes a long time, as this process does. There are people who will listen to them, and there are people who will stand behind them as to help them – give more strength to their voice – as they try to maneuver through the system.” To read more from Colorado News click here and to read more about the decision click here.

January 29th, 2021

On January 28, 2021, the Department of Veterans Affairs adopted the decision of the Administrative Judge ​finding that the VA subjected Gilbert Employment Law, P.C. ​clients, nurses, Kathy Bennett and Josephine Zahn, ​to sexual harassment and failed to take effective corrective action despite being aware of the “egregious” harassment.  Ms. Bennett and Ms. Zahn were part of the nursing staff on the psychiatric unit at the VA Medical Center in Denver. In the Summer of 2014, the unit had a patient in its care that sexually harassed and assaulted the female nurses on a daily basis. When Ms. Bennett, Ms. Zahn, and other nursing staff complained to their supervisors, management’s response was that the staff should expect ​such treatment because of the nature of their jobs and suggested the nurses find new jobs if they refused to tolerate the sexual harassment and assault. When Ms. Bennett and Ms. Zahn attempted to pursue the EEO process to protect their rights, the Agency’s Civil Rights staff erroneously advised them that they could not file EEO complaints because the EEO process didn’t cover harassment by patients.  ​In her decision, the Administrative Judge addressed the Agency’s lack of concern for its female staff and misunderstanding of the law, explaining that “[o]ne of the most glaring failures by the Agency is its complete disregard in developing and implementing a policy that prevents sexual harassment of staff by patients”  and finding that Agency management “failed to recognize that…nursing staff are entitled to a workplace free of harassment and sexual assaults.”  

The firm successfully pushed the Agency to move the complaints forward and represented Ms. Bennett and Ms. Zahn throughout the EEOC’s administrative hearing process, including at hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. After the hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the Agency was liable for the harassment the complainants suffered and awarded each Client $300,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages, plus all out-of-pocket expenses they incurred, which total close to $300,000 between the two. She also awarded over $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., and noted that the total judgment was over $1.5 million. The Agency had the opportunity to appeal the decision to the EEOC’s appellate body but declined to do so, instead adopting the decision in full.

The firm is particularly excited that the Administrative Judge found that the Agency was liable not just for the harassment Ms. Bennett and Ms. Zahn suffered, but also for the harassment of two other nurses who testified at hearing​ as witnesses but who had not filed EEO complaints, and that the Administrative Judge ordered the Agency to implement a policy governing how to respond to harassment by patients. Shannon Leary, AJ Hill, and Gary Gilbert represented Ms. Bennett and Ms. Zahn and are thankful both to have had the opportunity to support these strong women in standing up for themselves and asserting their rights, and to have been part of a case that will have a lasting impact on other employees as well.

September 11, 2020

Gilbert Employment Law, PC, in conjunction with Cohen, Milstein, Sellers, & Toll, PLLC, has filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal court, challenging a federal agency’s policy of blocking its employees from fighting personnel actions before the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB).  The case, Alvarez et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, Civil Action No. 20-cv-02626 (CCB), argues that by preventing employees from challenging personnel actions before the MSPB, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is denying its employees of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Most federal employees cannot be subjected to severe discipline without being provided with the opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.  If a federal agency upholds certain proposed disciplinary actions (such as removals, reductions in grade or pay, suspensions for more than 14 days, or furloughs for 30 days or less), the employee has the right to challenge the action before the MSPB.  The MSPB is a federal agency that oversees and adjudicates the propriety of these kinds of serious discipline.  It exists to, among other things, overturn disciplinary actions that have been taken due to discrimination, retaliation against whistleblowers, and failure to accommodate employees’ medical conditions.

The MSPB is composed of three members, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In order to issue final decisions, the MSPB must have a quorum of at least two members.  Since January 2017, however, the MSPB has lacked a quorum, and since that time, it has been hobbled by the Trump administration’s failure to appoint any members to the Board.  Beginning on March 1, 2019, for the first time in the MSPB’s history, none of the three MSPB Board Member positions was occupied by an officer confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  The Board’s three seats remain empty, and as a result, it cannot hear any appeals.

The Board acts as an appellate body to the decisions of its administrative judges, who issue initial decisions on disciplinary actions.  Although there has not been a quorum since January 2017, the MSPB has taken the position that its administrative judges may continue to oversee and rule on adverse action cases.  Beginning in August 2019 and continuing to today, DHHS has challenged that position, resulting in its employees’ cases being placed on indefinite hold.

Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018), DHHS argued that in the absence of any Senate confirmed MSPB members, MSPB administrative judges lack the delegated authority required to adjudicate appeals of adverse employment actions.  As a result, DHHS requested that the cases be placed on hold until a Board is appointed.  In response, the MSPB’s administrative judges have placed these cases on indefinite hold.

By using this strategy, over the course of the past year, DHHS has sought and was granted an indefinite hold in 77 appeals filed by at least 72 current or former employees of DHHS.  These employees have no other method by which they can challenge their employment actions, which may be improper (for example, due to whistleblower retaliation or discrimination).  The Alvarez case was filed to end this unconstitutional practice by DHHS.

Alvarez is currently pending before Judge Catherine Blake in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The putative class contains at least 72 members, all current and former employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, who have been subjected to adverse employment actions and thereafter denied rights guaranteed by statute to challenge the actions taken against them. All media inquiries may be directed to Plaintiffs’ counsel Kevin Owen, by calling 301-608-0880.  Plaintiffs are represented by Kevin Owen, Gary Gilbert, Christopher Bonk, Alexis Tsotakos, and David Norken, of Gilbert Employment Law, P.C.; and by Joseph Sellers and Brian Corman of Cohen, Milstein, Sellers, & Toll, PLLC.

Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., stands in solidarity with those outraged and grieving following the recent murders of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, Tony McDade, Sean Reed, Nina Pop, Steven Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and countless other victims of police brutality. Each of them should be alive today. As a law firm dedicated to fighting for civil rights, we affirm our support for the #BlackLivesMatter movement in the quest for justice long overdue.

Being Black in America should not result in disproportionate targeting by law enforcement, or any of the many forms of discrimination that are directed at Black people, including discrimination in employment. Nobody should have to live in fear of being killed by police, and nobody should have to mourn the loss of a loved one due to violence from those who are meant to protect and serve them.

At Gilbert Employment Law, we are committed to supporting our Black employees, Clients, and local communities during this increasingly difficult time, made ever more so due to a global pandemic that is disproportionately affecting Black and Brown communities. In order to take actionable steps towards progress, we pledge to audit our hiring paths to ensure that we are meeting our responsibilities to communities affected by 400 years of systemic racism in this country. We support our employees who engage in civic engagement that is meaningful to them, including the provision of additional paid leave to our employees to allow for such engagement. We pledge to explore and propose charitable donation strategies, socially responsible divestiture, and contract sourcing in furtherance of civil rights and social responsibility.

We welcome feedback from our clients and our colleagues in the civil rights community on how we can serve as better allies to all those marginalized by inequality. Today and always, Gilbert Employment Law stands in solidarity with the fight for justice and freedom for all.

On January 5, 2018, the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (DOES) issued a decision in favor of Maria Fuentes, represented by Gilbert Employment Law, P.C. and found that Vador Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Total Quality Building Services (“Total Quality”), violated the Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2014 (“PPFWA”) when it prohibited Ms. Fuentes from returning to the workplace after she requested an accommodation related to her pregnancy and pregnancy related conditions. DOES awarded Ms. Fuentes full backpay and reasonable attorneys’ fees and ordered Total Quality to pay a $3,000 penalty to the Pregnant Workers Protection Fund.

In March 2017, Ms. Fuentes, a cleaner, began experiencing severe back pain as a result of her pregnancy. Her doctor recommended that, due to her pregnancy and pregnancy related conditions, Ms. Fuentes be accommodated in the workplace, including avoiding excessive bending or squatting. On March 27, 2017, Ms. Fuentes provided a doctor’s note setting forth her restrictions to Total Quality. DOES found that, pursuant to her doctor’s recommendation, Ms. Fuentes could perform the majority of her duties and the only duty that Ms. Fuentes could not perform was cleaning the bathrooms. The same day, Total Quality informed Ms. Fuentes that she could no longer continue her employment unless her doctor authorized her to work without restriction. DOES found that Total Quality “show[ed] an unwillingness to reasonably accommodate [Ms. Fuentes]” when it refused to allow Ms. Fuentes to work “unless she provided a medical note releasing her to full-duty.” DOES further found that Total Quality could have provided an accommodation such as a “switch in bathroom duties between employees,” which would not have posed an undue hardship to Total Quality.

The PPFWA was designed to address the concern that all-too-often vulnerable, pregnant employees, like Ms. Fuentes, were placed on leave or terminated from employment when they could continue performing their duties with a reasonable accommodation. The PPFWA was intended to expand protections to pregnant workers to ensure they are able to maintain their jobs during a time they are most in need of stable employment. The decision by DOES will further the purpose of PPFWA and will encourage employers to comply with the law and provide appropriate accommodations to pregnant employees.