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 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: LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH IS HONORED AS "LAWYER OF THE YEAR" BY THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION On February 23, 2005, the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association honored Leizer Z. Goldsmith as the 2005 Lawyer of the Year. MWELA President Linda Correia presented the award to Goldsmith at the organization's annual luncheon. Correia cited several of the Goldsmith Law Firm's recent litigation successes, and noted that several have been accomplished on behalf of indigent or low income clients who might not have been able to obtain representation without The Goldsmith Law Firm or a similar firm. Correia generously referred to Goldsmith as "the king of summary judgment," in recognition of his many successes in preventing employers from having their employees' and former employees' suits thrown out of court without trial. In accepting the award, Goldsmith attributed much of his success to his practice of taking on cases for low and modest wage earners . After thanking his family, his clients and the many colleagues who have assisted him along the way, Goldsmith added that: "We are fortunate, indeed blessed, to live in a political/economic system that, for all its many faults-and there are many-still permits us to sometimes take on Wal-Mart or even the United States Government when it mistreats a single employee, no matter how low on the organizational chart. These types of victories may not each make profound social change, but I believe they do make this a better country, bit by bit." LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH IS CHOSEN BY PEERS AS ONE OF WASHINGTON'S TOP EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS Leizer Z. Goldsmith is one of the "top employment lawyers" in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, as reported in the December 2004 Washingtonian Magazine. Washingtonian states that it "contacted hundreds of attorneys in each of the specialties and asked which lawyer in their field-other than themselves-they would trust with their business. Lawyers with the most recommendations made the list." LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH WINS JUDGMENT OF $200,806.00 FOR VICTIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION, AND FAILURE TO PAY WAGES In Rainey v. Maximum Security, No. CAL 03-02720 (Prince George’s County Circuit Court), Leizer Goldsmith obtained a judgment in 2005 for $200,806.00, for compensatory and punitive damages for sexual harassment, retaliation, and unpaid wages caused by Maximum Private Security Corporation and Mervin A. Gillespie (collectively “Defendants”). Mr. Goldsmith was also awarded full attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $140,000.00. JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL IS UPHELD BY THE JUDGE On July 14, 2008, a jury of five men and three women at the federal court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, reached a verdict in the amount of $1,350,000.00, in favor of our client, Mick Orr, the former Assistant Chief Deputy United States Marshal for the District of Puerto Rico, in his case against the United States Marshals Service. Orr, 51, the Assistant Chief from 1999 to 2001, claimed that while he was Assistant Chief, then-United States Marshal Herman Wirshing and his Acting Chief, Juan Donato-Morales, discriminated against him because he is not from Puerto Rico, and retaliated against him because he protested the failure to promote, by denying him promotion to Chief and subjecting him to a hostile work environment. Orr presented evidence over nine days of trial, which convincingly demonstrated that Wirshing made numerous statements to the effect that he intended to promote only Puerto Ricans within management, and backed up those statements by manipulating the Marshals Service’s personnel system with the assistance of headquarters personnel in Arlington, Virginia, in an elaborate scheme designed to keep Orr from ascending to Chief, and to advance Donato’s chances of obtaining the job. The evidence revealed that Donato never did become the permanent chief because of an incident that caused him to leave the Service altogether. Before Orr left Puerto Rico in despair in early 2001, Wirshing and Donato carried out a pattern of harassment and intimidation against Orr and those who did not agree to participate in isolating him. Significant evidence was presented in the case that five local Puerto Rico police officers assigned to work as subordinates to Orr in his capacity as leader of the Puerto Rico Fugitive Task Force were fired from the task force by Wirshing because they were viewed as loyal to Orr, including one who provided detailed testimony of how Donato called him away from the scene of a near arrest of a fugitive, to inform him that he was summarily fired from the task force without explanation. One of those officers was also denied a position in the Marshals Service that Wirshing had previously promised her. The police officers, as well as Marshals Service deputies on the Fugitive Task Force were asked by Donato if they were "Netas" or "Insesctos", analogizing to a conflict between the powerful prison gang and the snitches, implying that the officers should join Donato’s gang. Deputies from the continental United States were belittled by references to them as "f-ing gringos" and sometimes "gringo maricon (faggot)". Donato was quoted as saying that "these gringos are like the plague." Orr was explicitly placed under the authority of Donato, even though Donato was a lower-graded employee under the Marshals Service’s national promotional system. He was warned of the obvious that there was an attempt underway to "screw him up" and at one point, in a highly visible reprisal noticed by everyone at the Task Force and within the District, was reassigned to supervise the cell block and removed from his duties at the Fugitive Task Force. The jury’s verdict culminates Orr’s struggle of over eight years to reverse the unlawful treatment to which he was subjected, including three dispositive motions-- the last of which was decided a business day and a half before trial-- and a lost EEOC administrative hearing in 2004. We were ably assisted in the jury trial by Manuel Porro-Vizcarra, of Manuel Porro-Vizcarra Law Offices, of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. The government is reinstating Deputy Orr to employment, but in September 2009, has filed an appeal. FEDERAL EEO OFFICER SETTLES HER CASE FOR $404,000 In September, 2008, we settled a Title VII retaliation case, Perry v. Tschetter (United States Peace Corps), for $404,000.00. The case is interesting primarily because it raised the issue of whether EEO officers in the federal sector owe their agencies a duty to cover up management discrimination. The Peace Corps had fired Ms. Perry, allegedly for hiring this firm to represent her while we were also representing another individual with a related complaint against the Agency. After several years, the Peace Corps was ready to settle after the Deputy Director was deposed. She had been appointed to act as EEO Officer with respect to Ms. Perry’s Complaint and also as deciding official on the discipline. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Management Directive 110, forbids the comingling of those roles. In addition, she was completely unable to justify the actions taken. It seems that the Peace Corps was not particularly interested in litigating out the Deputy Director’s conduct or whether it was terminable misconduct for an EEO Officer to hire a lawyer who was also representing another complainant. JURY RETURNS VERDICT FOR DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL OF $1,350,000.00 On July 14, 2008, a jury of five men and three women at the federal court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, reached a verdict in the amount of $1,350,000.00, in favor of our client, Mick Orr, the former Assistant Chief Deputy United States Marshal for the District of Puerto Rico, in his case against the United States Marshals Service. Orr, 51, the Assistant Chief from 1999 to 2001, claimed that while he was Assistant Chief, then-United States Marshal Herman Wirshing and his Acting Chief, Juan Donato-Morales, discriminated against him because he is not from Puerto Rico, and retaliated against him because he protested the failure to promote, by denying him promotion to Chief and subjecting him to a hostile work environment. Orr presented evidence over nine days of trial, which convincingly demonstrated that Wirshing made numerous statements to the effect that he intended to promote only Puerto Ricans within management, and backed up those statements by manipulating the Marshals Service’s personnel system with the assistance of headquarters personnel in Arlington, Virginia, in an elaborate scheme designed to keep Orr from ascending to Chief, and to advance Donato’s chances of obtaining the job. The evidence revealed that Donato never did become the permanent chief because of an incident that caused him to leave the Service altogether. Before Orr left Puerto Rico in despair in early 2001, Wirshing and Donato carried out a pattern of harassment and intimidation against Orr and those who did not agree to participate in isolating him. Significant evidence was presented in the case that five local Puerto Rico police officers assigned to work as subordinates to Orr in his capacity as leader of the Puerto Rico Fugitive Task Force were fired from the task force by Wirshing because they were viewed as loyal to Orr, including one who provided detailed testimony of how Donato called him away from the scene of a near arrest of a fugitive, to inform him that he was summarily fired from the task force without explanation. One of those officers was also denied a position in the Marshals Service that Wirshing had previously promised her. The police officers, as well as Marshals Service deputies on the Fugitive Task Force were asked by Donato if they were "Netas" or "Insesctos", analogizing to a conflict between the powerful prison gang and the snitches, implying that the officers should join Donato’s gang. Deputies from the continental United States were belittled by references to them as "f-ing gringos" and sometimes "gringo maricon (faggot)". Donato was quoted as saying that "these gringos are like the plague. " Orr was explicitly placed under the authority of Donato, even though Donato was a lower-graded employee under the Marshals ServiceŐs national promotional system. He was warned of the obviousŃthat there was an attempt underway to "screw him up" and at one point, in a highly visible reprisal noticed by everyone at the Task Force and within the District, was reassigned to supervise the cell block and removed from his duties at the Fugitive Task Force. The jury’s verdict culminates Orr’s struggle of over eight years to reverse the unlawful treatment to which he was subjected, including three dispositive motions-- the last of which was decided a business day and a half before trial-- and a lost EEOC administrative hearing in 2004. We were ably assisted in the jury trial by Manuel Porro-Vizcarra, of Manuel Porro-Vizcarra Law Offices, of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. The government's prospects for an appeal appear to be dubious at best. SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION CASE IS SUCCESSFULLY SETTLED In June 2006, Leizer Z. Goldsmith succeeded in settling the case of Coleman v. Talbot County, Maryland. The case involved the severe sexual harassment and retaliation of a detention officer at the Talbot County Detention Center. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH WINS AGAIN AT MARYLAND’S SUPREME COURT FOR MEDICAL BILLER On February 27, 2008, The Maryland Court of Appeals issued its second ruling in favor of our client, Joy Friolo, on the issue of attorneys’ fees. The defendant, Dr. Douglas Frankel, had prevailed at the intermediate appellate court, in arguing that Ms. Friolo was not entitled to shifted attorneys’ fees for the effort involved in obtaining the earlier victory before the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals has now reversed that ruling, underscoring the principle that under Maryland’s wage payment and overtime laws, a plaintiff is entitled to reasonable fees for the efforts necessary to obtain any of her remedies, including attorneys’ fees. The decision was noted in The Daily Record newspaper. VERDICT FOR THREE EMPLOYEE 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. HOUSEKEEPER WINS $150,000.00 VERDICT On November 3, 2000, a jury of eight women in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, returned a verdict of $150,000.00 for emotional harms, in favor of Clarence Walker, Jr., a housekeeper at the Department of Veterans Affairs Washington Medical Center, and against the Department. Walker, a United States Army veteran himself, claimed that he was denied promotion from his housekeeping post to a higher paying housekeeping position in 1996, when he was unfairly rated not qualified for the promotion by a hospital "rating panel." At trial, Walker produced witnesses and documents to show that the panel was fixed against him because he had previously filed a discrimination complaint against the supervisor who controlled the panel (after the supervisor threatened to fire him because of a knee injury). Walker’s evidence included the testimony of a one of the panelists, who confessed to the misconduct, as well as "rating sheets" from the panel proceedings which supported Walker’s claim that the panelists improperly coordinated their ratings of applicants, rather than arriving at them independently. The damages awarded by the jury represented compensation for upset and anger over being unfairly passed over promotion, which resulted in personal turmoil for Walker, as well as the onset of migraine headaches. The case was presided over by Senior United States District Judge June Green, who has entered judgment against the Defendant, but who still must rule on a potential award of back pay, promotion, attorneys’ fees and costs. 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. PLAINTIFFS WIN $280,000 JURY VERDICT AND FINAL JUDGMENT FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION In July 1999, a jury in D.C. Superior Court recently awarded $280,000.00 in damages to three women represented by MWELA attorneys, after a two week trial befoe Judge Rafael Diaz. 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 terminated 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. The Defendant was represented by Williams & Connolly. In December 1999, after the trial judge denied defendant's motions to reverse the verdict, the judgment against Dr. Beale became final. Judge Diaz has subsequently awarded attorneys fees and costs to the plaintiffs and their lawyers. Neil Henrichsen, now of Henrichsen Siegel, and Leizer Goldsmith, of The Goldsmith Law Firm, represented Plaintiff Laura Merriex. 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had previously ruled against Johnson and for the Agency. The case was subsequently settled under terms extremely favorable to Johnson.