Race DiscriminationLess
As the Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race." Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 862 (2007). We wish it were that easy; it's not.
At NDH, our constitutional lawyers fight to uphold the civil and human rights of all Americans. In terms of racial discrimination, that means we not only represent minorities and people of color, but in unique circumstances we represent Caucasians as well. As a current example, we represent Lt. Joyner against high-ranking officials of a large and prominent police department. Lt. Joyner is Caucasian, and he has been the victim of a policy of race discrimination. His police department habitually replaces an existing high-ranking official with an officer of the same race of the exiting official. In Joyner's case, the existing official was African-American, so that official was replaced with an African-American officer despite the fact that Joyner is immensely more qualified. The same has happened to African-American officers who have lost out on a position they deserved solely because the exiting official was white.
Race discrimination is not only in the workplace. Because we fight against racial discrimination wherever it appears, we have gained a broad knowledge about the law in this area. Discrimination law is a complicated arena and to fight successfully, you must have both an experienced lawyer and a firm with the resources and willingness to back you through the end of your case. This could mean fighting for you for years. We have done, and will continue to do, just that. Call NDH today.
Sex DiscriminationLess
As with race discrimination, sex discrimination cases are complicated. With our team at NDH, they are also winnable. Again, we represent not only women who have been victims of sex discrimination but also men. As an example, one of our clients is a law enforcement officer with years of qualified experience in the area of sex trafficking. He was deprived of a high-ranking position in his sex trafficking division because the position has been only given to women, some of whom have demonstrably lesser qualifications than our client.
We also take on "same-sex" harassment claims because, as the Supreme Court has said, "we see no justification in the statutory language or our precedents for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79, 118 S. Ct. 998, 1002, 140 L. Ed. 2d 201 (1998). Call NDH today.
Age DiscriminationLess
In 2009, the Supreme Court clarified/changed the law regarding age discrimination, saying that in order to prove age discrimination, a claimant must show that age was the "but-for" cause of the complained of discrimination. Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 175, 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2350, 174 L. Ed. 2d 119 (2009). "But for," however, does not mean sole cause and a seasoned lawyer knows that even in age discrimination cases, the client does not have to prove that age was the only factor involved in the scenario. The matter is much more complicated. Call our Civil and Human Rights attorneys today for a free consultation.
Retaliation ClaimsLess
Although retaliation claims are a form of discrimination, these claims have a different legal approach and thus require a lawyer such as an NDH lawyer who understands the distinction. claims are different from discrimination claims. Whereas discrimination claims are based on belonging to a protected class of persons, retaliation claims more often deal with punishment for engaging in a protected activity. Much broader in scope, retaliation claims occur in the context of exercising free speech (Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256, 126 S. Ct. 1695, 1701, 164 L. Ed. 2d 441 (2006)); exercising freedom of religion (CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 463, 128 S. Ct. 1951, 1964, 170 L. Ed. 2d 864 (2008)); and expressing views on matters of public concern (such as whistleblowing on unlawful conduct) (Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 692, 114 S. Ct. 1878, 1896, 128 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1994)). Furthermore, retaliation claims differ depending on whether you were employed at the time of your employer's retaliation against you, or whether you were a free citizen at the time that a government official retaliated against you.
The analysis requires an experienced attorney. For example, there is a concept called "mixed-motive discrimination" in which, depending on the facts, a government official could admit that his retaliatory actions were based in part on protected constitutional activity and get away with retaliating against you. Call NDH today.