Uncategorized

The subject of workplace defamation is a hot topic in legal circles these days.  In a pair of recent decisions, local federal courts have helped define when negative statements about employees can create legal liability for employers.  The answer varies depending on whether an employer has investigated alleged employee misconduct, and to whom the statements are made. In the first case, Bates v. Strawbridge Studios, a Virginia federal court allowed two former employees to pursue a…

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has recently taken the controversial position that certain written “at-will” employment disclaimers could be violating Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).  Specifically, the NLRB is taking aggressive steps to protect employees’ rights under Section 7 of the Act, which gives employees the right to engage in concerted activities in order to alter the terms or conditions of their employment.  The NLRB has recently claimed that these typical

Hampton v. J.W. Squire Company, Inc.– A supervisor called a subordinate a “house nigger” three times and the subordinate complained.  The Court held that these statements were not enough to create a “hostile work environment” and dismissed his claim for employment discrimination at the summary judgment stage. To win a a hostile work environment case, an employee must show that “the evidence—viewed in [his] favor—would allow a reasonable [finder of fact] to conclude that the harassment was (1) unwelcome,

Two Forums, Different Grounds Practitioners seeking on behalf of a client to challenge a particular Procurement outside the internal processes offered by a Federal Agency are given a choice of two forums: (a) the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), and (b) the United States Court of Federal Claims (CFC).[1] The GAO forum is non-exclusive. The GAO is an arm of the Congress and is empowered by 31 U.S.C. § 3552(a) to take action only on

Gordon v. Armorgoup N.A., A government contractor employee quit his job because racial harassment and discrimination forced him to resign — an alleged “constructive” discharge.  (Constructive discharge means that while one voluntarilly quits his job, he was effectively forced to do so by unfair circumstances).  The Court held that, under Virginia law, “constructive discharge” is not an exception to the general principle that employment in Virginia is “at will.”  One cannot sue for wrongful termination if he actually quit