Kator, Parks, Weiser & Wright, PLLC

A Washington, D.C. based law firm with a civil practice in employment law

Category: Discrimination (page 3 of 4)

Holding Colleges Liable for Sexual Assault

Students at colleges and universities have the right to live and study in environments free of sexual discrimination, harassment, and assault. Congress enacted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to prevent federally funded educational institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex. Title IX imposes a legal obligation on colleges and universities to prevent and respond to sexual assaults on campus. The United States Supreme Court has held that Title IX contains an implied right of action for a student who has been sexually assaulted by a faculty member or even another student. See Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. Of Educ., 526 U.S. 633 (1999). A student who has suffered sexual assault on school property, including campus housing and dormitories, may have the right to hold the school liable for deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment in school programs and activities. As a result of Title IX, colleges and universities cannot turn a blind eye to allegations of sexual assault but must complete a full investigation into such allegations or face potential liability. Courts across the United States have held schools liable for creating atmospheres pervaded with sexual hostility that resulted in violence. If you are a college student and have been the unfortunate victim of rape, sexual harassment, or sexual assault then you may have a claim against the school for monetary damages. To find out more information about Title IX liability against educational institutions and whether you may have a claim against a college or university, contact an attorney at Kator, Parks, Weiser & Harris for a free consultation to discuss your legal options. Also, for more information as to how to initiate a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, see http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html.

Cathy Harris speaks on ABC News about sex harassment on campus

KPWH Member Cathy Harris was featured in a report on ABC News program This Week with George Stephanopoulos, speaking about sexual harassment and sex assault on campus. Ms. Harris has focused on the issue of campus sexual harassment for many years. You can view the ABC News story by clicking here.

KPWH Settles Sexual Orientation Case

Kerrie Riggs and Cathy Harris of Kator, Parks, Weiser & Harris, PLLC proudly represented Dr. Patricia Kinne, a lesbian psychiatrist at the VA, in her complaints before the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and the EEOC. The case was recently settled with the help of the Office of Special Counsel, with Dr. Kinne receiving essentially full relief, including compensatory damages and attorneys fees. Dr. Kinne was discriminated against when she was threatened with removal after patients complained that she had disclosed she was a lesbian or referred to her wife. The patients cited Dr. Kinne’s sexual orientation as a basis for discontinuing their treatment with her. VA management at the Louisville VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Kentucky stated that Dr. Kinne’s disclosure of “personal information” was harmful to the doctor-patient relationship and warned she might be terminated. OSC investigated and found that while there were several hundred change-of-provider requests from patients against psychiatrists during the relevant time period, only two requests – the ones related to Dr. Kinne’s sexual orientation– were treated as potential corrective or disciplinary issues. In their OSC interviews, VA management officials were unable to distinguish their treatment of Dr. Kinne’s conduct from others who had received complaints, and provided inconsistent reasoning to support their actions. Dr. Kinne is a well-regarded psychiatrist with no other reported performance or conduct issues, and was complimented by the VA in 2013 for having relatively few patient complaints. The case settled just before an EEOC hearing on Dr. Kinne’s discrimination claims.

See OSC’s Press Release about the case by clicking here.

See Government Executive coverage of the case by clicking here.

Other coverage on settlement available by clicking here.

DEA Class Action Victory — Claim Forms Due Now

The EEOC has confirmed the finding of class-wide discrimination against female DEA special agents.  The process for individual awards to Class Members has begun, and Claim Forms should be submitted immediately.  For more information about the case, please click here.

Cathy Harris Speaks on ABC This Week About College Sexual Assaults

Cathy Harris was interviewed by ABC This Week about sexual assaults on college campuses.  Ms. Harris has fought to bring attention to this issue, and to fight for victims’ rights, for decades.

Click here to see the ABC This Week segment on college sexual assaults.

If you have been the victim of a sexual assault at college or at work, click here to contact KPWH to discuss your legal options.

Same-sex spousal benefits made available to federal employees

The Supreme Court today ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.  Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC is proud to be part of the legal effort that helped overturn DOMA.  KPW attorneys Cathy Harris and Andrea Goplerud have assisted GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) for several years in the federal-sector employment law aspects at the MSPB and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in DOMA litigation.  The Court’s decision results in same-sex federal employees being eligible for spousal benefits that had been denied under DOMA. For information about how you can secure these and other benefits now available, please visit http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/post-doma-fact-sheets/post-doma-federal-employees-spouses.pdf.  If you have questions, or if you feel that you have faced any discrimination or harassment due to your applications for same-sex partner benefits, you can contact KPW for a free consultation to discussion your legal options.

EEOC Finds Class-Wide Discrimination

A June 2013 order from the EEOC found that the Drug Enforcement Administration engaged in class-wide discrimination against female DEA Special Agents. The EEOC ordered that separate hearings be conducted to determine the extent of monetary damages due to class members, damages that are expected to be in the tens of millions of dollars.  KPW has proudly represented the class of female DEA Special Agents for decades. To learn more about the case, click here.

KPW Fights DOMA

Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC is proud to be part of the legal effort to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  KPW attorneys Cathy Harris and Andrea Goplerud have assisted GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) for several years in the federal-sector employment law aspects at the MSPB and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit associated with GLAD’s landmark case, Gill v. OPMGill is being held pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor. For more information about the case, and DOMA, please visit http://www.glad.org/doma.

EEOC Modifies Regulations For Discrimination Cases Filed By Federal Employees

After issuing a 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking and receiving comments, the EEOC issued changes to federal regulations on July 25, 2012.  These modifications to the federal regulations impact the consideration of discrimination complaints filed by federal employees and applicants.  Significant modifications to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 are discussed below.

Compliance

Federal executive agencies are required to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and policies.  Under the recent modifications of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, the EEOC will review agency programs for compliance with Civil Rights laws and the EEOC’s Management Directives.  If the EEOC determines that an agency’s EEO program is not in compliance, the EEOC will give the agency a reasonable opportunity to cure defects that have been found, provide a reasonable justification for its non-compliance, or establish that its program is in compliance.  If an agency fails to satisfy one of these criteria, a notice of non-compliance will be issued.  Under the rule, the EEOC Chair has discretion to determine whether a notice of non-compliance should be made public.

Pilot Projects

Under the new rule, the EEOC may allow agencies to conduct pilot programs for procedural complaint processing procedures that vary from the requirements of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614.  An approved pilot project can run for two years, and may be extended for an additional year if good cause is shown.

Notice of Rights

Under the EEOC regulations, an agency is required to complete its investigation and notify a complainant that he has the right to request a hearing (or an immediate final decision) within 180 days from the filing of the complaint.  The modified regulations now require that if the agency does not complete its investigation within 180 days, the agency must, within 180 days, issue a written notice to the complainant informing him that the agency has been unable to complete its investigation within the required time limits, and the agency must estimate and provide to complainant a date by which its investigation will be completed.  The notice must also inform the complainant that if he does not want to wait until the agency complete its investigation, he may instead request a hearing or file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court.  The EEOC, in the explanatory preamble, makes clear that a full range of sanctions are available should an agency not complete its investigation within the required time period, and that these sanctions may be warranted even if the agency issues the required notice under the new final rule.

Retaliation

Under the new rule, the EEOC clarified that federal employees alleging discrimination in proposals to take personnel actions or other preliminary steps to taking personnel actions should be dismissed unless the complaint alleges that the proposal or preliminary step is retaliatory.  That is, challenges to proposals or preliminary steps are actionable if the federal employee alleges that the proposal or preliminary step was issued: (1) because the complainant had engaged in prior EEO activity; (2) because the complainant had opposed a practice which he believed violated one of the federal EEO laws; or (3) to dissuade the complainant, or a reasonable person in the complainant’s circumstances, from engaging in protected EEO activity.

Class Complaints

The EEOC’s final rules makes two significant changes to the class complaint process.  First, the final rule seeks to shorten the class certification process.  An appeal of the acceptance or dismissal of a class complaint will be processed by the EEOC within 90 days.  Second, the final rule makes an administrative judge’s decision on the merits of a class complaint a final decision, which the agency can fully implement or appeal in its final action.  If the agency does not fully implement the administrative judge’s decision, the agency may appeal the parts of the decision that it wishes to contest.

EEOC Process: Electronic Filing

Agencies are now required to submit appeals and compliant files to EEOC in a digital format.  Complainants are encouraged to submit their documentation electronically.

MD-110

In addition to the explicit changes to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, the EEOC indicated that it will revise Management Directive 110 to provide additional guidance regarding the changes made by the final rule.  The EEOC will continue to review the federal sector EEO process in order to improve its quality and efficiency.

KPW Argues Key Case Before D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

On April 9, 2012, Michael Kator, Chair of KPW’s appellate practice section, argued a highly anticipated case that will help determine the legal requirements for discrimination claims.  KPW represents Jorge Ponce, a federal employee who claims to have been discriminated against because of his race when he was not selected for a position at the Library of Congress.  At trial, the District Court for the District of Columbia informed the jury that it could not rule in Mr. Ponce’s favor unless he showed that the illegal discrimination was the “sole” reason for the selection decision.  On appeal, KPW argues that the court’s jury instruction was in error, as it is inconsistent with the anti-discrimination laws and Supreme Court precedent.  KPW was supported by amicus briefs filed by the AARP and the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association.

If you have a discrimination case that is on appeal or may be appealed, contact KPW by clicking here for a free consultation.

Older posts Newer posts