Laws prohibiting discrimination and harassment continue to expand, and government agencies continue to increase their enforcement activities.  Phillips Law attorney assist employers faced with claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disability Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and similar federal and state laws.  Our attorneys defend lawsuits in federal and state courts, including class actions and multi-plaintiff cases.  Our attorneys also defend businesses in responding to individual and systemic discrimination charges brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as well as state civil rights agencies.

In addition, our attorneys work with employers of all types and sizes to help minimize the risk of litigation. We design workplace anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, provide management and supervisory training, and assist in coordinating internal investigations of harassment and discrimination claims.  Our attorneys also assist government contractors in evaluating their status and obligations under affirmative action laws, in drafting affirmative action plans, and in responding to OFCCP compliance audits through all phases, including conciliation.

Some of the successes of our attorneys in the area of employment liability defense include:

  • Phillips Law attorneys won a jury trial in which the plaintiff contended that our client had violated the Family Medical leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The plaintiff in this case is a single mother of four children, the youngest of which has severe asthma that requires periodic breathing treatments and administration of medicine.  She requested and used intermittent FMLA leave for more than two years before she was terminated for excessive tardiness and continuing to refuse opportunities to arrive at work on schedule. The plaintiff alleged that our client interfered with her FMLA rights, retaliated against her for exercising them and discriminated against her because of her association with a disabled person, her son.

At trial, the plaintiff contended that her tardiness was due to flare-ups of her son’s asthma, which she said should have been covered by her FMLA leave. (the plaintiff’s FMLA leave was medically certified to attend to provide breathing treatments and other care during asthma flare-ups, which required treatment expected to last from one day to two weeks.)  Our attorneys demonstrated to the jury that: the plaintiff’s morning activities exceeded the scope of her FMLA certification; she had a pattern of sporadic, unpredictable tardiness, regardless of her scheduled starting time; when asked, the plaintiff did not attribute her absence to her son’s condition, but to dropping off her four children at three different locations each morning; she was offered but refused to consider alternatives that could have helped her arrive at work on time; and she could have avoided virtually all of her tardiness by simply leaving home a few minutes earlier in the mornings.  After approximately one hour of deliberations, the jury found in favor of our client on all of plaintiff’s claims.

  • Summary judgment in favor of our client where plaintiff alleged age discrimination and violations of the Americans with Disability Act.  Our attorneys persuaded the jury that the plaintiff was terminated due to job performance.
  • After a one week trial, a jury verdict in favor of our client where the plaintiff alleged her supervisor sexually harassed her.
  • Summary judgment was granted in favor of our client on plaintiff’s retaliation claims.  Plaintiff claimed that our client passed him over for promotion due to his reporting of our client’s waste disposal activity to the Environmental Protection Agency.