Bucci & Dix

Call Today

(877) 276-3870 (toll free)
(804) 897-3950

10710 Midlothian Turnpike
Suite 304
Richmond, VA 23235
info@buccidix.com

Practice Areas

B&D Blog

Labor & Employment, Civil Rights and Discrimination

view all

Frequent Questions

Labor & Employment, Civil Rights and Discrimination

view all

Labor & Employment, Civil Rights and Discrimination

10/29/2009
Mark D. Dix
Comments (0)

Police Offers Alleges Civil Rights Violation By Local Government Officials

In mid-October, a Newport News police officer filed suit in federal district court, alleging that local government officials had violated his constitutional right to due process of law. The case is styled Hall v. City of Newport News.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires state and local governments to respect all rights, procedural and substantive, owed to individuals by law. When an individual believes that the government deprived him of a legal right, he can invoke the Fourteenth Amendment and sue the government for acting in an unconstitutional manner.

A due process violation is one of the allegations in Hall v. Newport News. In that case, Officer Hall was fired after two civilian complaints were filed against him in January 2007. He appealed that firing, and a grievance panel voted to reinstate him in October 2007. The city refused to re-hire Hall, and he remained out of work until a circuit court judge ordered the city to re-hire him in September 2008. Hall was not reinstated until November 2008, after the circuit court judge threatened the city with contempt orders. When he was finally reinstated, Hall was relegated to the records department and forbidden from making arrests, as he had in the past. The damage that Officer Hall alleges is the decreased chance for promotion in light of this treatment. Furthermore, the city has yet to pay Hall for the months between his successful appeal before the grievance panel and his actual reinstatement, a period of 13 months. Officer Hall is asking the federal trial court to award him $5 million for the deprivation of his rights and the damage to his reputation and job opportunities.

Labels: civil rights discrimination police

10/21/2009
Mark D. Dix
Comments (0)

Prison Guard's Sexual Harrasment Claim Dismissed

A United States Magistrate Judge recommended that two sexual harassment claims be dismissed in an employment discrimination suit last week. In Sizemore v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority, a female prison guard challenged her termination as contrary to federal sexual harassment laws. In particular, the guard alleged that her superior officer had made illegal sexual remarks to her in such a sever and consistent manner as to amount to a “hostile work environment.” She also alleged that she was fired because she was a woman, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On the hostile work environment claim, the federal magistrate recommended dismissal. Federal law requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an “objective, reasonable person” would find the work environment to be abusive or hostile and that the particular plaintiff actually found the working environment to be abusive or hostile. While the guard in this case produced sufficient evidence to show that a reasonable person would have found the prison to be an abusive or hostile work environment, the court held that she failed to produce any evidence that she actually found it to be hostile. The court stated that the female guard failed to show that she perceived the work environment to be hostile or abusive in the slightest, despite alleging many inappropriate comments.

On the second claim, for unlawful firing due to her sex, the magistrate judge likewise recommended dismissal. On that issue, the female guard produced evidence that male guards were more likely to be demoted or transferred for the same kinds of conduct she was disciplined and ultimately fired for. In response, the prison argued that the female guard was terminated for poor performance evaluations, repeated tardiness, and negligence in her daily work. The court found that argument persuasive, and held that the prison had supplied an adequate non-discriminatory basis for the firing. As such, the guard could not seek damages from the prison for unlawful termination.

Labels: civil rights discrimination harrasment

5/11/2009
Clint W. Verity
Comments (0)

Virginia Supreme Court Denies Applicability of Employer's Arbitration Agreement for Employee's Lawsuit.

The Supreme Court of Virginia denied the applicability of an arbitration agreement between Dillard’s Inc. and its employees. This case arose when Dillard’s terminated two employees for suspicion of embezzlement and then filed criminal charges against the employees. Thereafter, the criminal charges were dismissed and the employees brought a civil action of malicious prosecution against Dillard’s. Dillard’s attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement with the employees but the trial court denied its request. The Supreme Court of Virginia granted an interlocutory appeal but decided against Dillard’s. The Supreme Court reasoned that the language in the contract was too narrow to include actions take between the employee and employer after the employee was terminated.

Labels:

4/24/2009
Mark D. Dix
Comments (0)

Employment Discrimination - Title VII - Back Pay - Attorney’s Fees

Lawyers for the plaintiff in a federal employment discrimination lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond were awarded attorneys’ fees of $107,000 on December 23, 2008. At trial, a jury awarded Hartnett $200,000 for her claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the Brunswick County school board. Judge Henry Hudson, in addition to awarding attorneys’ fees, awarded Hartnett back pay in the amount of $34,167. In reaching its determination as to the appropriate award of fees to make, the court looked at the prevailing market rate for attorneys with similar experience in Richmond, Virginia.

Labels: discrimination Title VII

4/15/2009
M. Scott Bucci
Comments (0)

Qimonda plant to lay off 1,500 workers

Qimonda AG will shut down its Henrico plant, and will lay off approximately 1,500 Richmond area workers. Labor and employment lawyer Mark Dix was recently interview by WTKR TV6 regarding the plant closing.

Labels:

4/15/2009
Mark D. Dix
Comments (0)

Whistleblowers win partial victory

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia reversed a lower court’s decision to set aside a $10 million verdict rendered by a jury against a government contractor and in favor of two whistleblower employees of the company, in a civil fraud case arising as a result of government contractor services provided by the company in Iraq.

Labels: appeal fraud labor and employment qui tam whistleblower

4/10/2009
Mark D. Dix
Comments (0)

$540,000 will settle NN police death suit

U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Friedman in Norfolk, Virginia approved a $540,000 settlement in a civil rights lawsuit filed as a result of the death of Robert L. Harper, who was shot and killed by a Newport News police officer. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleged excessive force by police and sought damages under, among other things, § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Under Virginia law, wrongful death settlements have to be court-approved.

Labels: civil rights excessive force police wrongful death

4/10/2009
Hunter W. Jamerson
Comments (0)

Hopewell Discrimination Lawsuit Settles

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced a settlement in an employment discrimination case brought in the U.S. District Court in Richmond. The defendant in the lawsuit, Airgas Carbonic, Inc., is a Pennsylvania based company with a plant in Hopewell, Virginia. The lawsuit accused the company of refusing to promote an employee at its Hopewell plant because he is black. Airgas Carbonic will pay $40,000, revise its anti-discrimination policy and provide training to its supervisors about federal anti-discrimination laws.

Labels: discrimination settlement workplace