Employment Legal Team

May 14, 2020, Defendants filed Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Defendants’ Reply, Defendants’ Motion to Strike, and Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions.
Defendants filed these motions under the premise that Plaintiff had filed her response brief to Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss with the Court on April 25, 2020, but had not served the response brief to Defendants until May 4, 2020. May 21, 2020 Order at 1. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had not filed a response and provided Plaintiff until May 26, 2020 to email her response brief to Chambers. On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff emailed a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration to Chambers. Thus, it appears that the document emailed to chambers on May 26, 2020 is Plaintiff’s response brief to Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss.

May 27, 2020, Defendants filed a Revised Motion for Reconsideration, and on June 2, 2020, Plaintiff provided Chambers with an emailed response.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 9, 2020, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff until March 23, 2020 to respond to Defendants’ pending motions, including Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss.
However, Plaintiff instead filed a Verified Complaint on March 23, 2020. In an order dated April 7, 2020, the Court accepted the Verified Complaint, filed March 23, 2020, as Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. See Order, Apr. 7, 2020. The Defendants were given two weeks to supplement their Renewed Motion to Dismiss, filed March 6, 2020. Thus, Defendants had until April 22, 2020 to file any supplement pleadings and Plaintiff had up to and until April 29, 2020, to file any response. Id. April 23, 2020, Defendants filed Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to File
Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss in which Defendants included a Supplement to Renewed Motion to Dismiss (“Defendants’ Supplement”).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 5, 2020, the U.S. Department of the Army decided to end the three-year debarment of our client.
In 2018, the Army had "debarred" him - deemed him ineligible to receive Army contract awards or to work under any Army personal services contracts - through 2021. Having worked exclusively in Kuwait under various Defense contracts since 2012, he now faced the bleak prospect of being unemployable at the end of his current Army subcontract.

Based our request for reconsideration, the Army decided to end his debarment a year early, on March 5. Based on his skills and experience, he now expects to be picked up for future Army contracts after his current contract ends.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 2019, we settled an EEO complaint on behalf of a federal employee for $130,000.
The Agency was responsible for carrying out an retaliatory investigation based on a malicious, knowingly false report from a manager who had been the subject of multiple EEO complaints. Their case broke down in discovery when the manager declined to participate or provide responsive information under oath. Not exactly the actions of someone who has nothing to hide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 28,2017 - Prevailed Against Employment Discrimination and Retaliation

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) liable for discrimination against Complainant, a 54-year old African-American working as a Management and Program Analyst.

Complainant received training and accreditation from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Field Operations Academy in Glynco, Georgia which allowed him to qualify as a seized property officer in Fugitive Operations Division, receive firearms training and bear arms when transporting badges for destruction. However, despite his credentials, he was prevented from receiving firearms training, and was removed of his badge and credentials. It was established based on preponderant evidence that the said actions were attributed to no other factor aside from complainant’s race and color. In addition, after he initially filed an EEO complaint he was subjected to harassment and retaliatory measures.

After a two-day hearing, the Commission found for the complainant and held that the Agency discriminated against the Complainant because of his race and color. It was also found that he was retaliated against due to the filing of an EEO complaint, which further created a hostile working environment for the complainant. In view of the findings, complainant was awarded damages and attorney’s fees for his ordeal.

The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC is a full-service employment law firm based in Washington, D.C. Our attorneys have extensive experience in a broad range of employment law practice areas. Our attorneys have successfully represented clients before numerous state and federal courts, as well as various municipal, state and federal agencies and authorities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 17, 2017- Compelling Observance of Settlement Terms and Affording Resolution to a Discriminated Employee

Mr. Gilliard successfully served as counsel for Complainant, a Traffic Management Specialist who entered into a settlement with the Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency) after filing a complaint against unlawful discrimination with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The settlement was a specific performance which involved the establishment of a Deployment Rotational Plan.

The complainant alleged that there was a breach of the settlement as he was purposely excluded from certain operations on a number of occasions despite possessing the skills needed during the said operations. Instead, employees not possessing the competence were deployed who were asked to perform tasks specific to his skills. As a result, the complainant felt excluded and discriminated against, which violated the terms of the settlement earlier agreed upon.

On appeal to enforce the settlement, the Office of Federal Operations of the Commission confirmed the settlement, and ordered the defendant agency to comply with the terms of the agreement by developing a written deployment plan with more thorough criterias. The office also awarded the payment of attorney’s fees to the complainant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We represented the Chief Engineer of USDA personnel at COPEG, a joint U.S.-Panama commission to eradicate screwworms in Panama. A native of Panama, naturalized American citizen, and a Gulf War veteran, our client had prepared to retire at an early age in 2015 due to being subjected to eight years of a hostile work environment due to her gender and also due to reprisal from her male engineering staff subordinates. She alleged that U.S. Agriculture Department officials were complicit in condoning, enabling, and permitting Panamanian male engineers and managers to harass the Complainant with very little recourse or penalty. The harassment even included the detonation of an expensive boiler in close proximity to her.

We alleged that the Agriculture Department was liable for harassment by the Panamanian government personnel because our government knew about the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. We argued that the U.S. Agriculture Department was not relieved of liability merely because the persons harassing our client were not Agriculture Department employees.

Prior to an EEOC hearing scheduled for spring 2016, the parties came to a mutually beneficial settlement agreement with terms that will remain undisclosed. Our client decided against retirement and is still today employed by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 22, 2015 – We Negotiated a Settlement for an Ailing Former U.S. Defense Department Employee

Our client, a Defense Department employee was diagnosed with a terminal medical condition that required her to receive frequent medical treatment simply to stay alive. After her agency denied her leave for one such scheduled medical visit, she left the agency. Years later, we filed her complaint and request for an U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing several years later. Because we alleged a claim of constructive discharge, her complaint was deemed timely filed. Because this was a “mixed case,” the EEOC transferred the case to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Two months later, the parties came to a mutually beneficial settlement agreement with terms that will remain undisclosed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 20, 2014 – We Settled a Civil Court Complaint on Behalf of the Family of Our Deceased Client

On November 20, 2014, National Alliance on Mental Illness and the estate of our late client, Stephen R. Kiosk, executed a settlement agreement with confidential terms and filed a notice of dismissal of his complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In 2008, Mr. Kiosk left behind a productive body of work and excellent reputation as the Senior Director of Consumer Advocacy with Mental Health America to join the National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) as Director of the STAR Center, a federally-funded program designed to facilitate encourage independent peer-to-peer advocacy, counseling and provision of mental health services by the consumers of mental health services ("consumers") themselves to other consumers. (http://web.archive.org/web/20120418082505/http:/www.consumerstar.org/aboutus.html)

While extremely proud of the work and advocacy that he and his staff performed on behalf of consumers of mental health services, particularly in minority, immigrant, LGBT, ethnic and other communities often deprived of or culturally averse to receiving access to needed mental health services, Stephen began experiencing physical and emotional strain due to his immense workload and what he described as negative experiences with NAMI management. In April 2012, three months after defending an African-American gay staff member against what he perceived to be cowardly acts of racial and gender identity prejudice, and also protesting what he saw as misuse of federal grant funds, Stephen was asked to leave NAMI. In October 2013, The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC filed a complaint against NAMI on behalf of Mr. Kiosk in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kiosk passed away in January 31, 2014 and was never able to experience the settlement of his complaint. After he died, NAMI's attorneys convinced the Court that documentary evidence proffered by our client's estate would be inadmissible as unauthenticated or hearsay, which would mean that the executrix of Mr. Kiosk's estate (his sister) would no longer have status as plaintiff in this case - which meant that there was no plaintiff and that this complaint was ripe to be dismissed. Four months after we successfully persuaded the Court to grant our motion to again treat Plaintiff's sister as substitute plaintiff, NAMI executed a court-approved monetary settlement with our late client's estate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 15, 2014 - We Negotiated a Settlement for a Loyal Foreign Service Executive

Our client, a doctor working overseas for USDA, alleged, among other things, that he was being subjected to national origin discrimination at work, based on his national origin Within six months, we settled our client’s matter through negotiation and execution of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 28, 2014 - The Merit Systems Protection Board Finds in Favor of Another Client

On February 28, 2014, the Merit Systems Protection Board ordered that our client, a grants administrator, be granted a wage grade increase illegally denied by his employer, the U.S. Department of the Interior Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our client, after filing an EEO complaint, was fired in December 2012. Adding insult to injury, the Agency denied the annual cost-of-living wage increase routinely paid to all federal employees. Although the agency agreed to return him to work, it delayed paying back pay owed before announcing in July 2013 that his wage increase had been denied the previous December.

The Merit Systems Protection Board determined that because the agency failed to provide our client with a year 2012 personnel evaluation the decision to deny his wage increase on the basis of performance was unsubstantiated and therefore illegal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 11, 2014, The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC entered into a non-confidential settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs under which our client, a WG-8 medical engineer at a Long Island, NY Veterans Affairs Medical Center, could return to employment after being separated from federal service in the summer of 2013.

After our client had filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the VA in 2011, the VA entered into a settlement with him. A few months later, however, a female supervisor claimed that our client injured her hand by intentionally "shaking her hand too hard" and a criminal case commenced against him, again in federal court. In order to remain employed, he had to relinquish his job as an medical engineer and take on the duties of a supply clerk at the VA. During this period, a new supervisor even denied him the opportunity to use approved leave to take his mother to the hospital following her stroke.

When the federal court convicted him of third-degree assault in 2013, the VA immediately fired him.

We filed an MSPB Appeal in August 2013. To our statement of affirmative defenses we attached a statement from a witness asserting that our client's's female supervisor and other colleagues of his conspired to falsely allege that he assaulted her. They referred to our client, who is African-American, as a "piece of s**t" who did not belong at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Northport, New York (Long Island).

The Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge assigned to the case opined that it seemed unfair for the VA to penalize our client twice for the same incident and that she could be inclined to overturn existing administrative caselaw setting forth that the concept of double jeopardy cannot apply in administrative law.

Due to a postponement granted to await the outcome of the appeal of the criminal case against our client, and our client's's desire to return to productive work again, our client agreed to execute a settlement agreement with the VA effective January 10, 2014.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 2, 2013, The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC reached settlement with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with regard to the removal of a federal police officer employed at a VA hospital.

After a decade of receive outstanding performance evaluations and having a spotless conduct record, the police officer was accused by superiors of sleeping on duty and leaving her weapon unsupervised. She was removed from Federal service in the summer of 2012.

We alleged that she and a second police officer had both been summarily removed - both on charges of sleeping and not securing their weapon - solely as a form of EEO reprisal. One month before being removed, both officers had agreed to provide favorable testimony on behalf of a third police officer in the course of an investigation of that third officer's EEO complaint. The police officials responsible for charging and firing this police officer were also named as Responsible Management Officials in the aforementioned EEO complaint.

Based upon evidence that many police officers at this VA hospital, including the one of the officials who filed the charges against this police officer, had themselves been observed falling asleep at work and leaving their firearms unsupervised – without being terminated or even so much as disciplined – we filed a U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board mixed appeal of this officer's removal.

Before discovery began in this matter, the Administrative Judge granted our motion to suspend the case and appoint a settlement judge. We subsequently reached a mutual settlement agreement that, among other things, put the Appellant back to work on the VA payroll. Justice was served.

The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC is a full-service employment law firm based in Washington, D.C. Our attorneys have extensive experience in a broad range of employment law practice areas. Our attorneys have successfully represented clients before numerous state and
federal courts, as well as various municipal, state and federal agencies and authorities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C., October 14, 2012 - Civil Rights Attorney Makes the "Condo Board from H***" Stop Harassing a Disabled Unit Owner

A condominium association board and its property manager signed an agreement to stop harassing a disabled unit owner after The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC filed a housing discrimination complaint in June 2012.

The complainant owns two small comfort dogs that keep him calm through panic attacks and bouts of serious anxiety and near-suicidal depression. When he moved into his unit, he requested a reasonable accommodation from a condominium policy barring animals from the premises.

Despite the very real danger of him causing harm to himself, the condominium board refused to grant the complainant's request for a reasonable accommodation, thereby ignoring the wishes of the building owner and two letters from his physicians certifying as to his disability.

Instead, the property manager began attempting to extract fees for "dog training," and of course, for the services of the condominium association board’s attorney.

We filed a housing discrimination complaint with the U.S. Federal Housing Administration, a component of HUD, in June 2012. The Federal Housing Administration referred the claim to a state human rights commission that persuaded both parties to execute a settlement agreement.

Under the terms of the agreement, both the unit owner and his dogs will continue to reside in his unit - without further harassment from the condo board and the property manager.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, DC (PRWEB) October 11, 2012 - Relentless Federal Personnel Lawyers Get A Federal Immigration Enforcement Agent A Second Shot At Restoring His Job, And His Professional Reputation

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board granted a Petition for Review we filed on behalf of Robert Nimmo, a Newark, N.J. Federal agent. The Board agreed that his trial probationary position with ICE was similar enough to his previous job with TSA to place his MSPB appeal within its jurisdiction and remanded the matter to the Administrative Judge.

According to an Order issued on September 14, 2012 by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (the "Board"), Chairman Susan Tsui Grundmann and Vice Chairman Anne Wagner granted of a Petition for Review of a Federal Immigration Enforcement Agent (the “Appellant”). The Appellant was represented by Gerald L. Gilliard of The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., LLC According to the Board's Order, Mr. Nimmo was employed between 2006 and 2009 as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO) with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA), when he applied for, and was hired into, a position as an Immigration Enforcement Agent (IEA) with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Service (ICE). He was removed in 2010 for circumstances related to a minor automobile accident.

According to Section 7511(a)(1)(C) of Title 5 the United States Code, a legal exception giving the Board jurisdiction over an appeal filed by a Federal employee on a trial probationary period, called “tacking prior service,” occurs when the trial probationary period immediately follows prior continuous service. When the permanent employee demonstrates that he has had two years of continuous service in the same or similar permanent position, he is treated as a permanent Federal employee and entitled to appeal adverse actions to the Board According to the Board's Order, Board Chairman Grundmann and Vice-Chairman Wagner agreed with Gerald Gilliard, the Appellant's representative. Finding that Mr. Nimmo made a nonfrivolous allegation that the TSO and IEA positions were the same or similar, the Board remanded the case to an Administrative Judge for an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction and further proceedings.

The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq. is a full-service employment law firm based in Washington, D.C. Our attorneys have extensive experience in a broad range of employment law practice areas. Our attorneys have successfully represented clients before numerous state and
federal courts, as well as various municipal, state and federal agencies and authorities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, DC (PRWEB) November 1, 2011 -- The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq. announced today the opening of its flagship office in Washington, D.C., to meet the growing demand for exceptional yet affordable employment law legal services in the areas of whistleblower actions, wrongful termination, employment discrimination, security clearance revocations, non-competitive promotions, disability retirement, workers' compensation, and the Family Medical Leave Act.

Mr. Gilliard’s representation of clients in a broad range of labor and employment matters includes an association with a government contracts litigation boutique where he provided legal services to corporate whistleblowers during Federal trial and appellate qui tam and commercial litigation against powerful corporations such as KBR, Halliburton Co., and Telefónica, S.A. U.S. ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 07-1516 (4th Cir.); U.S. ex rel. McBride v. Halliburton Co., No. CV-05-00828 (D.D.C.); Kargo, Inc., et al., v. Pegaso, PCS, S.A. de C.V., et al., No. 05 Civ. 10528 (S.D.N.Y.). He went on to serve as Staff Counsel for the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, a federal-sector labor union with more than 600,000 members. His dedicated, relentless legal representation and nationwide outreach efforts to thousands of Transportation Security Administration airport screeners (Transportation Security Officers, or TSOs) was crucial to AFGE's success in winning the TSOs' collective bargaining representative election in 2010. Since then he has gone on in private practice to represent Federal and private sector employees alike before Federal and state courts, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

Mr. Gilliard, a former board member on the D.C. Bar Labor and Employment Law Steering Committee, is a member of the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, an affiliate of the National Employment Law Association. Gerald Gilliard, the son of an Army Reserve sergeant, attended the University of Pennsylvania on an AFSCME scholarship. Mr. Gilliard is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center.

The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq. is a full-service employment law firm based in Washington, D.C., with attorneys who possess extensive experience in a broad range of employment law practice areas. A philosophy of concerted, collaborative problem solving, coupled with a client-centered focus, allows The Law Office of Gerald L. Gilliard, Esq., to deliver exceptional legal services at competitive rates.