Offering experienced and dedicated representation throughout the Commonealth of Virginia
Workplace and Disability Law in Virginia is determined by a maze of federal and state laws and regulations. The law office of D. Scott Gordon represents individuals and businesses in all types of work related claims and litigaiton, including federal discrimination lawsuits, state contract claims, and employee grievances.
My office also counsels growing small and medium-sized business regarding all elements of employment law and requlations, striving at all times to provide direct, qualified advice at reasonable rates.
Additionally, my office focuses on the represention of individuals who have been denied Social Security Disability Benefits or Federal Retirement Disability but remain unable to work because of their disabling condition. Working with your attorney, you can appeal your claim for benefits and demand a hearing before the SSA or MSPB.
| EMPLOYMENT LAW
Sexual Harasment Government Employment Race, Gender & Age Discrimination Employee Grievance Hearings School Board Hearings Professional Licensure Hearings Unemployment Compensation Overtime Wages Unpaid Wages & Commissions Non-Competition Agreement Severance Agreements
|
| CIVIL LITIGATION
All State & Federal Courts Contract Disputes Employment Litigation Business Litigation Criminal Misdemeanors
|
| SMALL BUSINESS
Employment Handbooks EEO Analysis & Policies Business Contracts VEC Hearings Business Formation Business Disputes FLSA Compliance Litigation Defense
|
| DISABILITY RIGHTS
& BENEFITS Disability Discrimination Workers' Compensation Social Security Disability Benefits Family Medical Leave Long-Term Disability |
| RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS |
| ISOLATED RACIAL INCIDENT HELD INSUFFICIENT TO FORM HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corporation and IBM, Fourth Circuit, August 14, 2006
The Fourth Circuit holds that an employee’s complaint regarding a single racial comment by a co-employee, which was not directed towards the complaining employee, was insufficient to constitute a protected complaint of a “hostile work environment,” sufficient to form the basis for the employee’s complaint of unlawful retaliation. In rendering this decision, the Fourth Circuit continues to draw a distinction between isolated acts, which though offenses, are not deemed to be the sort of severe or pervasive conduct that create a hostile work environment. Full Text |
| FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EEOC/OFO DECISIONS NOT BINDING IN SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL LITIGATION
Laber v. Francis Harvey, Secretary of the Army, Fourth Circuit, February 16, 2006
In reversing prior precedent, the Fourth Circuit now holds that federal employees who obtain a finding of liability for discrimination through the EEOC/OFO administrative process can no longer rely on this finding in seeking additional relief through a federal Court action. Previously, a federal employee could seek additional damages in federal Court while operating on the assumption that liability already had been established through the administrative determination. Under the new standard, employees who prevail initially in the EEOC/OFO process could risk losing their entire claim should they elect to pursue greater damages through a Court action. Full Text. |
| PREGNANCY & SEX DISCRIMINATION CASE REINSTATED DESPITE EMPLOYER’S HIRING OF A REPLACEMENT EMPLOYEE FROM SAME PROTECTED CLASS.
Miles v. Dell, Incorporated, Fourth Circuit, November 22, 2005
Although a plaintiff, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, normally must show that an employer hired a replacement from outside of plaintiff’s protected class, the Fourth Circuit recognizes several exceptions to this general principle. One such exception occurs where different persons make contested firing and replacement hiring decisions. In such case, the hiring of a similarly situated employee is of no probative value for the employer’s non-discrimination. Accordingly, where hiring and firing decision were made by separate persons, a plaintiff need not provde that she was replaced by someone outside of her protected class in order to set forth a prima facie case under Title VII or the ADEA. Full Text.
|
| EMPLOYEES CANNOT WAIVE RIGHTS UNDER FMLA WITHOUT DOL APPROVAL
Taylor v. Progress Energy, Incorporated, Fourth Circuit, July 20, 2005
The Fourth Circuit upholds a Department of Labor regulation prohibiting the waiver of FMLA claims. The impact of this decision means that even though an employee may sign a broad waiver agreement as part of a settlement or severance agreement, the waiver will not necessarily prohibit the employee from pursing FMLA claims through a Court action, unless the DOL or a Court initially approves the waiver. Full Text. |
If you are in need of assistance or counsel in these areas, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 804-440- 6557 to schedule an initial consultation.
D. Scott Gordon, Attorney
7 East Franklin St.
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-440-6557