           |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440, Washington, D.C. 20015 Tel: 202-895-1506 Fax: 202-318-0798 E-Mail: lgoldsmith@goldsmithfirm.com |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Over the years, our firm has had the privilege of assisting many wrongfully terminated, non-promoted and unlawfully harassed employees to obtain redress. Most frequently, wronged employees obtain financial compensation. However, the firm has also obtained reinstatement to employment for numerous previously-fired employees. We've also frequently won employees their promotions and other types of relief-such as admission to a medical residency. Many settlements are confidential. However, the following are a few of our success stories: LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH OBTAINS VERDICT OF $202,556.00 IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION AND UNPAID WAGES CASE Our firm recently obtained a winning jury verdict at Prince George's County Circuit Court, in the amount of $202,556.00, in Civil Action No. 03-02720. We presented the jury with special interrogatories regarding sexual harassment, constructive discharge, wage payment violations, and retaliation. There were 19 decisions for the jury to make on the verdict sheet and all 19 were answered in our favor! The jury awarded all the hard damages requested, treble damages on our wage and pay issues, and punitive damages as well. The case involved the harassment of our client, a security company employee, by the owner of the company, who died after the litigation got underway. He harassed her daily, in person and on the phone, persistently seeking sex, over a period of about a year and a half. On several occasions, he attempted to kiss her against her wishes. Our client complained to the owner's brother, who was the company President, but he ignored the complaints. Retaliatory actions were taken against our client, first in the form of refusing to pay her bonuses due, and finally by stripping her of her office duties and assigning her to a guard post. Defendants claimed that she had engaged in misconduct but had no serious evidence to support the assertion.
A motion has been filed to require the Defendants to pay our fees. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED, SO TRIAL MAY PROCEED AT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN GREENBELT, MARYLAND, IN A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE In December, 2004, our firm received an opinion by United States District Judge Alex Williams, denying a defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby permitting us to proceed to trial on behalf of a federal employee who was sexually harassed. The plaintiff was subjected to thirty to forty comments about the tightness of her skirts and the shape of her legs, which came on a daily basis for some time. The harasser also made sounds suggesting that she would taste good, and referenced "hitting" on her. He would stare at the plaintiff, making her feel "nasty," and would block her path so she could not get by. After the plaintiff protested to management about this conduct, and refused to withdraw those complaints, the harasser upped the ante in a ferocious pattern of retaliatory harassment that included the constant, seemingly unending punching of her office partition, the daily singing of his jingle-"I know where you live, I'm gonna get you," personally threatening the plaintiff at her duty station on his day off, making numerous explicit and implicit threats of violence and death including leaving a bullet at her desk and then telling her "this is for you!", threatening her with a golf club, threatening to blow up her house, and running her off the road. In addition, outrageously, the harasser insinuated himself into plaintiff's children's school where he volunteered as an assistant football coach. During this period, the harasser continued to make blatant sexually-oriented remarks, such as when he asserted that plaintiff must have "sucked" someone to be nominated for civilian employee of the month. Our firm had previously tried this case to an EEOC administrative judge in Baltimore, who, despite crediting the plaintiff's testimony, somehow decided that he could not hold the government agency defendant responsible for the conduct of plaintiff's co-worker. Rather than give up, we proceeded to file the case as a civil action in the U.S. District Court. Our decision was vindicated, as the Court held that the conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to form a claim of sexual harassment, and that the agency's failure to take sufficient corrective action despite clearly being fully aware of the harassment, was actionable. No trial date has yet been set. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH SUCCESSFULLY PROTECTS JURY VERDICT FOR THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES, BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS Our office represents three Spanish-speaking employees, for whom we filed suit in D.C. Superior Court under the D.C. Human Rights Act for race and national origin discrimination and retaliatory discharge (and, in addition, wage law violations). Plaintiffs had worked for Restaurant Equipment and Supply Co. for several years each at the time of their firings. Their job was to install restaurant equipment purchased by Defendants' clients. We alleged that Plaintiffs, who are Latino, were subjected to a hostile environment, called derogatory names ("stupid" and "garbage"), denied breaks and necessary safety equipment, discriminatorily paid less than non-Latino workers and unlawfully denied rightful wages. We asserted that Defendant Kim struck Plaintiff Gutierrez for handing him the wrong size screw, and that when Plaintiffs requested medical care for Gutierrez, Defendant forbade him from leaving the facility. We further alleged that as a result of protesting this situation internally to Defendants, Plaintiffs were retaliatorily fired. Although they filed a dispositive motion and served their own discovery requests, Defendants' counsel-- Stanley Goldschmidt and Tamir Damari-- refused to provide us with required information. Most importantly, they failed to file an answer when that motion was denied, as required by the Superior Court Rules. The Superior Court -- as it was required to pursuant to SCR Civil 12(a)(5)-- entered a default order against Restaurant Equipment Defendants. The Court stated that its Order was "based upon Defendants' failure to answer the complaint or to request an extension of time in which to do so." Restaurant Equipment Defendants moved to vacate the entry of default, asserting that the failure to file the Answer was inadvertent. However, the Superior Court found Defendants' explanation failed to address the issue of the Answer, and declined to vacate. The Court maintained that posture in denying Defendants' request for reconsideration. We moved for a jury trial on damages instead of a judge-only hearing, and a jury trial was held on damages. Defendants' counsel litigated vigorously. We obtained verdicts and a judgment for all three Plaintiffs, totaling over $900,000.00. Defendants appealed only the entry of default and the Superior Court's declination of the opportunity to vacate it. The conduct and outcome of the trial was not at issue on appeal. Leizer Z. Goldsmith argued the case on appeal. Two questions were presented. First, whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in entering the default, or whether, as we argued, the entry of default was proper because it was explicitly mandated by law once Defendants failed to timely file their Answer. Second, whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in declining to vacate the entry of default. The Court of Appeals held that the entry of default was indeed mandated by law. With regard to the question of whether the default should have been vacated pursuant to Defendant's request, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs, that Defendants would have had to show "good cause." Defendants had asserted that they had "inadvertently" failed to file their answer, and provided various, sometimes contradictory excuses for that failure, including some raised for the first time ever on appeal. The Court held that simply "forgetting" to file was insufficient to show good cause, especially where, as here, appellants had conceded at oral argument that they were reminded of their obligation to file by Plaintiffs nearly three weeks before the default was entered. Accordingly, the Court upheld the verdict in our clients' favor. MARYLAND'S HIGHEST COURT REQUIRES CALCULATION OF ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR WINNING PLAINTIFFS IN ALL MARYLAND FEE-SHIFTING CASES In a case brought and litigated throughout by Leizer Z. Goldsmith and The Goldsmith Law Firm, under Maryland's wage payment and overtime laws, the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland's supreme court) ruled that under all Maryland Statutes calling for the losing defendant to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees, the starting point for calculating those fees is the reasonable number of hours times the reasonable hourly rate of the attorney. As under similar federal statutes, adjustments can then be made to the total, based on a variety of factors. The case-Friolo v. Frankel-was tried to a successful jury verdict in 2001. However, the trial judge limited attorneys' fees to forty percent of the $11,000.00 verdict. The impact of the Court of Appeals' decision is enormous, since many lawyers have in the past been unable to take low-wage earners' wage payment and discrimination cases because they knew they could not be compensated for the work. In reaching its holding, the Court stated that the purpose of the attorneys' fees provisions in the statutes is to enable individuals whose rights under the statutes have been violated to obtain counsel, even when their claims may be for small sums of money. In this regard, the Court recognized that the fee award may properly be higher than the damages amount in certain circumstances, and referred generally to the existence of federal precedent on that point. The Appellee attempted to convince the Court to treat the (wage payment) case differently from a civil rights case, but the Court declined to adopt any such distinction. The Court also rejected the notion that the statutes' "permissive" language (that fees may be awarded) could in any way undermine the fact that the purpose is remedial and that the usual result when the Plaintiff wins should be an award of fees. The Court also eschewed the employer's advice that it not bar fees for any particular services because they related to claims that were "unsuccessful." The case has now been returned to the trial judge for a recalculation of the attorneys' fee award. MARYLAND APPEALS PANEL RETURNS PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY DISCRIMINATION CASE TO PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Leizer Z. Goldsmith and The Goldsmith Law Firm succeeded in reversing a Prince George's County Circuit Court judge's decision transferring a discrimination case to Montgomery County, Maryland. In the case, Pope-Payton v. Realty Management, the company argued that even though Ms. Pope-Payton worked for the company at its property in Prince George's County, Maryland, and even though she sued under that county's law, the case could only be heard in neighboring Montgomery County, because its corporate offices were located there. The Court agreed with Ms. Pope-Payton, however, that she should be permitted to bring the case in Prince George's County. EMPLOYEE PLAINTIFF WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY IN DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASE, CASE SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLES Judge Henry Kennedy, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of liability, in the disability discrimination case of Johnson v. Brown, Civil Action 96-01686. Judge Kennedy concluded that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs violated the Rehabilitation Act by terminating Plaintiff Michael Johnson's employment in 1995, while he was working on a light duty assignment making surgical packs. The Judge ruled that Johnson could have been permitted to remain in the light duty assignment indefinitely without imposing an undue burden on the Agency. Both an MSPB administrative judge and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had previously ruled against Johnson. After Judge Kennedy's ruling, the case quickly settled on terms favorable to Johnson, including a large cash payment covering both Mr. Johnson’s damages and attorneys’ fees. PLAINTIFF OBTAINS $237,000+ SETTLEMENT IN DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASE On December 28, 2001, Wal-Mart entered into a consent decree granting the plaintiff $176,975.00 in compensatory damages and $34,063.00 in back pay, as well as attorney's fees and costs, in the case of EEOC v. Wal-Mart in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case concerned Wal-Mart's failure to accommodate the plaintiff, a deaf individual, during the job application process and failure to hire her because of her disability. Wal-Mart also offered the plaintiff a job with a back-dated effective starting date entitling her to the wages and benefits of a three-year employee. Leizer Z. Goldsmith and Julie Martin represented the plaintiff, who intervened in the case. MEDICAL BILLER WINS JUDGMENT OF $11,778.85 FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME; ATTORNEYS' FEE AWARD STILL IN LITIGATION This case involves Plaintiff Joy Friolo's ("Ms. Friolo") claims against Defendants Dr. Douglas Frankel ("Dr. Frankel") and the Maryland/Virginia Med Trauma Group (collectively, "Defendants"), for unpaid bonuses and overtime. It was tried over two days, June 25-26, 2001, before the Honorable Judge DeLawrence Beard. The jury awarded Ms. Friolo $11,778.85.00 for unpaid bonuses/breach of contract, and unpaid overtime, finding the Defendants both liable on all questions of liability presented to them. Leizer Z. Goldsmith represented Ms. Friolo in the Montgomery County, Maryland Circuit Court. Ms. Friolo was employed by Defendant -- a medical doctor, as a medical biller. She alleged that Defendants breached their contract with her, and violated the Maryland Wage Payment and overtime laws. In particular, she contended that in accordance with her agreement with Defendants, she was entitled to receive five percent (5%) of all medical insurance reimbursements and collections received each month. The evidence at trial showed that she was not fully compensated as agreed. Defendants also improperly classified Ms. Friolo as an exempt employee, and therefore did not pay her for her documented overtime hours. At trial, Ms. Friolo sought payment for all the overtime work, at the rate required by law. Defendants denied that she was entitled to bonus or overtime pay. The jury agreed with Ms. Friolo and awarded damages both for bonuses and overtime. Although the judgment has been paid, as of summer 2002, the parties are continuing to litigate this matter with regard to the amount of attorneys' fees to be paid by the Defendant, because the trial judge's award was less than the actual value of the time spent on the case. Ms. Friolo's request for and order requiring Dr. Frankel to pay additional fees is presently pending before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, and will be argued in fall 2002. The Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association has agreed to support the case with a friend-of-the-court brief. Other employment and civil rights groups are considering participating as well. Over the years, our firm has had the privilege of assisting many wrongfully terminated, non-promoted and unlawfully harassed employees obtain redress. Most frequently, wronged employees obtain financial compensation. However, the firm has also obtained reinstatement to employment for numerous previously-fired employees. We’ve also frequently won employees promotions and other types of relief—such as admission to a medical residency. The following are just a few of our success stories: VERDICT FOR THREE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION VICTIMS: $928,200.00 On May 2, 2001, a jury of seven in District of Columbia Superior Court awarded a total of $928,200.00 in compensatory and punitive damages to three Latino immigrant laborers, in the case of Gutierrez v. Restaurant Equipment and Supply Depot. The jury found that three plaintiffs were entitled to compensation as a result of discrimination based on national origin, retaliation for protected protests against discrimination and battery. Leizer Z. Goldsmith and Karen Bower represented the three plaintiffs. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH WINS PLAINTIFF CLARENCE E. WALKER, JR. $150,000 JURY VERDICT AND FINAL JUDGMENT FOR RETALIATION In late October 2000, a jury of eight women in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia awarded $150,000.00 in compensatory damages to Clarence E. Walker, Jr., a Housekeeping Aide at the Washington Medical Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The jury found that Mr. Walker was denied a promotion within the Environmental Management Service, as a result of his protected protests against discrimination. Mr. Walker expects to receive his promotion shortly, and expects to be awarded an additional sum for lost wages. A petition seeking payment of attorneys' fees by the government has been granted in full by the Court. Leizer Z. Goldsmith represented Mr. Walker. THE GOLDSMITH LAW FIRM HELPS TERMINATED EMPLOYEE TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RETALIATION CASE Many employment discrimination cases effectively end when the Defendant employer files a "Motion for Summary Judgment," seeking dismissal of the case, and the court grants the Motion. The Goldsmith Law Firm is proud to have defeated summary judgment once again, in late 2000, in the case of Ferguson v. Small (Smithsonian Institution). In the case, the firm's client, Eve Ferguson, was terminated just days after her attorney sent a letter to the Agency requesting that she be given reasonable accommodations on account of her physical ailments. The victory was particularly satisfying in light of an earlier EEOC administrative judge's decision in favor of the defendant that has now been overruled by the Court. The case is expected to go to trial later in 2001. PLAINTIFFS WIN $280,000 JURY VERDICT AND FINAL JUDGMENT FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION In July 1999, a D.C. Superior Court jury awarded $280,000.00 in damages to three women, including one represented by Leizer Z. Goldsmith and Neil Henrichsen. The jury concluded that Dr. Robert S. Beale, a "bariatrics" (diet) physician with offices in the District, sexually harassed all three plaintiffs, retaliated against two of them, and that his conduct was "willful and malicious." Plaintiff Laura Merriex, who was fired after protesting the harassment, was awarded $90,000.00 in compensatory damages. The other plaintiffs were awarded $70,000.00 and $45,000.00 in compensatory damages. Each plaintiff was also awarded $25,000.00 in punitive damages. Williams & Connolly represented the defendant. In December 1999, after the trial judge denied defendant's motions to reverse the verdict, the judgment against Dr. Beale became final. The Court subsequently ordered Dr. Beale to pay the plaintiffs several hundred thousand dollars for the attorneys’ fees incurred in litigating the case. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||