[Link to Equal Employment Opportunity Project] [Link to Fair Housing Project] [Link to Public Accomodations Project] [Link to Disability Rights Project] [Link to DC Prisoners' Rights Project]
[Link to Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project] [Link to Derechos de los Inmigrantes y Refugiados] [Link to Public Education Project] [Link to Special Projects]
[Link to History] [Link to How You Can Help]


Notable EEO Project Cases Against Government Agencies 

The Washington Lawyers' Committee's EEO Project and its volunteer lawyers have won, or successfully settled, numerous lawsuits against government agencies, such as the following:

Neal, et al. v. D.C. Department of Corrections
Case no. 93-2420 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
The Committee achieved an unprecedented settlement on behalf of a class of female corrections officers after a jury awarded millions of dollars to compensate them for the sexual harassment and retaliation they suffered at the D.C. Department of Corrections. The settlement included an $8 million settlement fund and a Consent Decree that required, among other things, the establishment of a Special Inspector to investigate sexual harassment and retaliation complaints at the Department as well as an ombudsman to respond to similar employee complaints. Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe served as class co-counsel on the case. See 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11469.

Thomas, et al. v. Albright
Case No. 86-2850 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
In a significant victory on behalf of a class of African-American Foreign Service officers challenging discriminatory promotion and other personnel policies at the Department of State, the Committee obtained a settlement providing for $3.8 million in back pay, broad injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld served as co-counsel on the case.

Grant, et al. v. Dept. of Education
Case No. 1:00-cv-01595 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
Addressing systemic discrimination at the Department of Education, the Committee filed a lawsuit on behalf of African-American employees who alleged discriminatory promotion practices. As a result of the settlement, the Department agreed to pay the class members $4 million, to promote almost three dozen class members, and to implement major changes to the Department’s promotion procedures. Steptoe & Johnson served as co-counsel in the case.

Kaplan v. U.S. Department of Commerce
Case no. 05-1419 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
The plaintiff sued the Department of Commerce for failing to accommodate his disability, dwarfism, and for unlawfully terminating him from his position as a technical and administrative assistant after he endured discriminatory comments by his supervisor. The Committee successfully settled the case for $100,000 in damages, in addition to attorneys’ fees. Steptoe & Johnson served as co-counsel on this case.

Mackel v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
Case no. 00-2753 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
After a trial that highlighted how civil rights laws depend upon individuals speaking out against injustice, a jury awarded $1.7 million in compensatory damages to an African-American manager who was turned down for promotion after he testified on behalf of a co-worker in a civil rights case. The plaintiff had been successfully performing in the desired position in an acting capacity and had been ranked the top candidate by the hiring panel. Pursuant to Title VII, the award was reduced to the maximum permissible under the law, and the case subsequently settled. Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman served as co-counsel on the case.

Anderson v. Library of Congress
Case no. 03-84 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
The Committee brought this case on behalf of a female uniformed officer in the Library of Congress Police Department, who was forced to resign under a threat of immediate termination. This threat came on the heels of Ms. Anderson’s unsuccessful attempts to stop the sexual harassment that she and other female officers endured at the hands of their direct supervisor. Through settlement, the Committee obtained for the plaintiff not only $120,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees but also reinstatement. Miller & Chevalier worked with the Committee as co-counsel in this case.

Porter v. U.S. Agency for International Development
Case no. 00-1954 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
In this case, the plaintiff had performed outstandingly for USAID for years and had risen through the ranks, but finally hit a glass ceiling at the GS-14 level. When Mr. Porter complained about USAID’s discrimination, the agency retaliated against him by denying him additional promotions. The Committee pursued the case to trial, where the plaintiff prevailed on his two retaliation claims and was awarded $30,000 in damages as well as attorneys’ fees. Covington & Burling co-counseled with the Committee on this case.

Mellerson v. Social Security Administration
Case no. L-01-2090 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
The Committee sought relief for an African-American woman who had dedicated her career to the SSA, only to be denied promotions as she watched less qualified white men promoted by a white male official with a history of race discrimination. As a result of mediation, the plaintiff received compensation for all of her back pay, her emotional pain and suffering, the front pay she would have received had she been promoted, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Piper Rudnick worked as co-counsel in this case.



Notable EEO Project Cases Against Private Entities 

The EEO Project and its volunteer lawyers have won, or successfully settled, lawsuits against private entities throughout the D.C. metropolitan region, including the following:

Bonilla v. Sterling Construction Services, Inc.
Case no. 8:05-cv-2720 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Va.)
Addressing the exploitation of marginalized immigrants, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee’s EEO Project filed a sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a recent immigrant who worked as a janitor for Sterling Construction and who suffered her supervisor’s sexual harassment in fear and silence until he sexually assaulted her. The supervisor eventually was convicted and sent to prison, and the Committee successfully settled Ms. Bonilla’s civil lawsuit for $85,000, along with required EEO training for Sterling’s managers, Sterling’s employment policies provided to its Hispanic employees in Spanish, and creation of an internal grievance process accessible to non-English speakers. Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman served as co-counsel, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) served as a co-plaintiff in the suit.

Linklater v. Prince of Peace Church, et al.
Case no. 237453-V (Montgomery Cty Circuit Ct., Maryland)
In this landmark Title VII and First Amendment case, the Committee represented a church music director who was severely harassed by multiple male leaders of a local church and then retaliated against by local and regional church leaders when she complained about the harassment. The Committee and co-counsel Shearman & Sterling tried the case before a jury, obtaining over a million dollars in damages for the plaintiff.

Fenwick v. Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (“SMECO”)
Case no. 8:03-cv-00383 (U.S. District Court, Maryland)
In this case, the Committee filed suit alleging that the plaintiff, a long-time employee of SMECO, endured a racially hostile work atmosphere riddled with epithets and threatening conduct for years before he was discriminatorily terminated. The Committee achieved a tremendous settlement that included, among other forms of relief, also a consent decree requiring SMECO to implement a cultural diversity and sensitivity training program for all employees, hire an outside discrimination compliance officer, and work towards greater minority representation in management and in career-advancing training programs. Steptoe & Johnson served as co-counsel on the case.

Romero v. Sheraton Arlington
Case no. 04-CV-1157 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Va.)
Confronting the increasing use of “English Only” rules to exclude Spanish-speakers from the workforce, the Committee filed a national origin discrimination lawsuit against the Arlington Sheraton for terminating Mr. Romero, an immigrant who had worked successfully as a dishwasher for more than a decade before losing his job because of Sheraton’s newly instituted English fluency rule. The Committee obtained a settlement for the plaintiff of $50,000 in damages, in addition to attorneys’ fees and extensive injunctive relief, including EEO training for Sheraton management and improved access to the hotel’s EEO complaint process for Spanish-speaking workers. Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman joined as co-counsel on the case, and the EEOC served as a co-plaintiff.

McCoy v. Peake Printers, Inc.
Case no. 8:99-cv-03076 (U.S. District Court, Maryland)
The Committee, co-counseling with the D.C. law firm of Miller and Chevalier, obtained a jury award of $2.4 million in compensatory and punitive damages for an African-American press operator on his claims of race discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment. While Peake Printers’ appeal was pending, Mr. McCoy successfully settled his claims with Peake for over $2 million, as well as attorneys’ fees and various forms of injunctive relief.

Anderson v. Equitable Bank
Case no. PJM-01-2634 (U.S. District Court, Maryland)
In this case, an African-American senior vice president with a stellar performance history alleged that he suffered a campaign of retaliatory harassment culminating in retaliatory discharge after he complained about discriminatory promotion decisions. The Committee was able to negotiate, on behalf of Mr. Anderson, a confidential agreement resolving the matter on mutually acceptable terms. Shearman & Sterling co-counseled the case with the Committee.

McNeill v. Techna-Graphics, Inc.
Case no. 01-2461-RMU (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
The Committee sued Mr. McNeill’s employer for race discrimination and retaliation, alleging that as an African-American estimator at a printing company, Mr. McNeill was repeatedly denied promotions, called racial epithets by his supervisor, and ultimately terminated to make room for a white estimator. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Techna-Graphics agreed to pay several hundred thousand dollars in damages and attorneys’ fees, as well as to adopt several policies designed to enhance its compliance with civil rights laws. Shearman & Sterling co-counseled with the Committee on this case.

Chaves v. Rings Leighton Design Group, et al
Case no. 03-0001281 (District of Columbia Superior Court)
In a case reflecting the increasing prevalence of discrimination based on pregnancy and family responsibilities, the defendant informed Ms. Chaves within days of her announcement about her pregnancy that the company was going to cut her hours, reduce her pay, and terminate her on her last day of work prior to giving birth to her child. When the plaintiff complained that this was discriminatory, the defendant immediately fired her. The Committee ultimately was able to negotiate a settlement on favorable terms for the plaintiff.



Friend of the Court Briefs

Aleman et al., v. Chugach Support Services, Inc., et al.
Case no. 98-3652 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)
Raising a new question of law in the Fourth Circuit, the Aleman case presents the issue of whether Indian Tribes are covered by Section 1981. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, ruling that because defendants have status as a Native American tribe and are exempt from coverage under Title VII, they are necessarily exempt from coverage under Section 1981 as well. The plaintiff appealed, and asked the Washington Lawyers’ Committee to participate as an amicus. The EEO Project, along with two other non-profit civil rights groups, argued that Title VII’s exemption for Indian Tribes does not apply to Section 1981 and that, if the court held otherwise, litigants would improperly seek to transport many of Title VII’s unique limitations to Section 1981. The Fourth Circuit’s decision could have significant implications for a myriad of other issues on which the language and history of Section 1981 and Title VII differ.


Lively v. Flexible Packing Assoc., et al.
Case no. 97-CV-128 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals)
See 830 A.2d 874 (D.C. App. 2003)
After a jury awarded Plaintiff Gaye Lively almost a million dollars in damages for her hostile work environment, unequal pay and retaliation claims, a D.C. Superior Court trial judge granted the Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Ms. Lively’s claims were untimely and that the jury’s verdict was insufficiently supported by the evidence. Ms. Lively appealed and, during rehearing en banc, the EEO Project, along with two local civil rights organizations, argued in an amicus brief that the lower court erroneously construed the continuing violation theory of a hostile work environment claim and improperly held the evidence to be insufficient as a matter of law. In August 2003, the D.C. Court of Appeals agreed, in a decision that set an important precedent regarding accrual of sexual harassment claims under the DCHRA.


Kyle v. J.K. Guardian Security Svcs., Inc.
Case no. 98-3652 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)
See 222 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2000)
The Kyle case addressed important questions related to the eradication of hiring discrimination, which is prevalent yet difficult to address because the rejected applicant rarely has information about who was selected. Kyle presented the issue of whether the employment testers, who posed as prospective job applicants and uncovered the defendant’s discriminatory hiring practices, had standing to sue under relevant civil rights laws. The district court ruled that the plaintiff testers lacked standing but, on appeal, the EEO Project, with the assistance of Sidley & Austin, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that testers for a civil rights organization have standing to sue in their own right. In a favorable opinion, the 7th Circuit held that employment testers have standing to bring Title VII claims, although they lack standing under Section 1981. The holding is an important step in the use of employment testing and of litigation by testers and the civil rights organizations employing them, which is crucial to detecting, proving, and remedying hiring discrimination.


Puryear v. County of Roanoke
Case no. 99-2359 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)
See 214 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2000)
In this case, the defendant employer contended that the employee could not pursue her federal sexual harassment lawsuit because she did not note on her EEOC administrative complaint that she was also making a claim under state discrimination law. When the district court rejected its argument, the employer appealed. At that point, the Committee, with the assistance of the law firm of Covington & Burling, filed a friend of the court brief with the Fourth Circuit, urging affirmance of the district court's decision. In an opinion issued on June 13, 2000, the Fourth Circuit did so, holding that no such notation was required in order to pursue a claim under federal law. The Committee chose to take a stand on this issue to protect the rights of EEO claimants who already shoulder substantial administrative exhaustion responsibilities before they can pursue their claims in court.

[Home]       [News ]       [To Contribute]