• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • NELA Exchange
  • Cart
  • Contact Us
  • Join

NELA

Empowering Workers' Rights Attorneys

  • Home
  • Membership
    • Join NELA
      • Join/Renew Online
    • Committees & Practice Groups
    • Ethics & Sanctions Assistance
    • Affiliate Discussion List Archives
    • My Account
      • Renew Membership
    • Support NELA
  • Programs & Events
    • Annual Convention
    • NELA Briefing: McLaren Macomb
    • Spring Seminar
    • Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)
    • Upcoming Events
    • Online CLE
    • Bookstore
  • Advocacy
    • Amicus Curiae
    • Ending Forced Arbitration
      In The Workplace
    • Fair And Independent Judiciary
    • Statements, Letters & Testimony
    • Legislative & Public Policy Program
  • About Us
    • NELA Board
    • Affiliates
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Governance
    • Staff
    • Join Our Team
    • The Institute
    • Support NELA
  • Press & Media
    • On The Hill Newsletter

Pedro Valverde

The National Employment Lawyers Association Denounces Changes To EEOC Dispute Resolution Programs

August 17, 2020

Unilaterally rolled out by EEOC Chair, “pilot” projects hinder employee rights in discrimination cases

For Immediate Release
Contact: Andrea Hansen
509.306.1867
ahansen@flyingcrow.com

Washington, D.C. – August 17, 2020 – The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), the nation’s largest legal association whose members exclusively or primarily represent workers, today urged EEOC Chair Janet Dhillon to discontinue two pilot programs that limit the rights of those who suffer from workplace discrimination, such as sexual harassment or race discrimination.

The impacted programs – conciliation and mediation – are forms of dispute resolution intended to encourage settlement rather than litigation. Despite the EEOC’s mission to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination, the proposed changes favor employers by limiting investigation, potentially hiding systemic discrimination on the part of a particular employer or industry, and weakening the employee’s ability to obtain relief from the discrimination and fair monetary damages.

While labeled “pilot” projects, with respect to the conciliation program the modifications were implemented nationwide, a departure from typical EEOC protocol. The pilots were executed unilaterally by Dhillon, without input from the other EEOC commissioners on the bipartisan commission. With respect to the changes in the mediation program, there is no plan to increase the number of … Read More

Categories: EEOC, Forced Arbitration, News, Press Release Tags: Discrimination, EEOC, Forced Arbitration

NELA Strongly Opposes Proposed Changes To EEOC Dispute Resolution Programs

August 17, 2020

Download Letter

Janet Dhillon, Chair
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington, DC

Via Email

RE: EEOC Conciliation and ADR Pilot Programs

Dear Chair Dhillon:

The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) respectfully writes to urge you to discontinue the Conciliation Pilot Project initiated on May 29, 2020 and the Mediation Pilot Project initiated on July 6, 2020 and to abandon the proposed changes to both the Conciliation and the Mediation programs at the EEOC. The changes contained in these pilots have profoundly limiting impact on the rights of working people who seek redress for workplace discrimination.

NELA is the largest professional membership organization in the country comprised of lawyers who represent workers in labor, employment, wage and hour, and civil rights disputes. NELA empowers workers’ rights attorneys through legal training, promoting a fair judiciary, and advocating for laws and policies that level the playing field for workers. NELA has filed numerous amicus curiae briefs before the United States Supreme Court and other federal appellate courts regarding the proper interpretation of federal civil rights and worker protection laws; provided comments on relevant Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) for federal agencies whose policies impact working people; and engages in legislative advocacy on behalf … Read More

Categories: News, Statements, Letters & Testimony Tags: EEOC

Moses-EL v. Denver, 10th Circuit

August 17, 2020

On August 17, 2020, NELA and The Institute joined Public Justice and other disability and civil rights organizations in filing an amicus brief in Moses-EL v. Denver in the 10th Circuit. This brief addresses the vital importance of maintaining a Rule 8 pleading standard that does not raise barriers for entry to the courthouse for plaintiffs. In this case, the district court stiffened the already strict interpretation of Rule 8 established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. This heightened standard is in direct contravention to the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, requiring a level of specificity in the pleading that was unacceptably high. Courts have long recognized the importance of pleading standards that allow plaintiffs access to the discovery phase, even if their initial pleading lacks some factual specificity and is unsophisticated.  Many thanks to Public Justice for drafting this brief.

… Read More

Categories: Amicus Briefs Tags: 10th Circuit, Federal Rules

Pambakian v. Blatt, 9th Circuit

July 6, 2020

On July 6, 2020, NELA and The Institute joined National Women’s Law Center and 45 other organizations in filing an amicus brief in Pambakian v. Blatt in the 9th Circuit. The amicus brief highlights the inherent problems surrounding forced arbitration, which denies workers access to justice and results in fewer claims, lower chances of recovery for plaintiffs, and lower recovery amounts. Even more importantly for workers who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, arbitration requires secrecy from all parties, preventing survivors from speaking about their experiences and allowing corporations to protect abusers on their payroll. We are deeply grateful to National Women’s Law Center for leading the charge on this brief.

… Read More

Categories: Amicus Briefs Tags: 9th Circuit, Forced Arbitration, Sexual Harrassment

U.S. Supreme Courts Sides With LGBTQ+ Workers

June 15, 2020

In Landmark Ruling, U.S. Supreme Court Finds LGBTQ Workers Are Protected Under Title VII

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

The Supreme Court ruled today that an employer who discriminates against an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark decision for LGBTQ workers.

The majority opinion in the 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA (consolidated with Zarda v. Altitude Express Inc. and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC), was authored by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

The opinion was largely based on the text of Title VII. As the majority notes:

“In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. … Read More

Categories: News, Press Release Tags: Discrimination, LGBT, Sex Discrimination, Sexual Orientation

NELA 35th Anniversary Contribution Form

June 1, 2020

… Read More

Categories: Links

NELA 35th Anniversary Contributor Guide

June 1, 2020

… Read More

Categories: Links

NELA 35th Anniversary Campaign

June 1, 2020

… Read More

Categories: Links

Heimbach v. Amazon, Supreme Court of Philadelphia

March 6, 2020

On March 6, 2020, NELA joined our Western and Eastern Pennsylvania Affiliates, AFL-CIO, National Employment Law Project, SEIU, UFCWIU, Justice At Work, and Towards Justice in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of the Appellants in Heimbach v. Amazon (No. 43 EAP 2019). Appellants are a class of men and women who engage daily in grueling work in Amazon’s Pennsylvania warehouses. At the end of each day, workers are required to use their personal, unpaid time to undergo Amazon’s mandated security screenings before they can leave the premises. This brief asks the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to confirm that Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) is more protective than the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the current federal floor for workplace protections, therefore ensuring that Amazon pays their workers for required screenings completed onsite. Amazon and its numerous staffing agencies have argued that they may rely solely on federal workplace laws, including the FLSA and Portal-To-Portal Act (PPA), in calculating labor costs and imposing its labor compensation practices. Additionally, Amazon asks the court to import the de minimis doctrine, which allows employers to avoid paying workers for “infrequent and insignificant periods of time beyond … Read More

Categories: Amicus Briefs

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12

Primary Sidebar

Find-a-Lawyer

Directory

Latest News

  • NELA Urges Vote On Nomination of Julie Su As Labor Secretary
  • Director of Advocacy
  • Diversity on the Bench: “It All Matters”
  • Women’s History Month

Footer

NELA Logo

NELA Headquarters
1800 Sutter Street, Suite 210
Concord, CA 94520
(415) 296-7629

Washington DC Office
C/O AFL-CIO 815 Black Lives Matter Plaza NW
Washington DC, 20006

Email: nelahq@nelahq.org
Fax: (866) 593-7521

© 2000–2023 NELA. All Rights Reserved

On March 6, 2020, NELA joined our Western and Eastern Pennsylvania Affiliates, AFL-CIO, National Employment Law Project, SEIU, UFCWIU, Justice At Work, and Towards Justice in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of the Appellants in Heimbach v. Amazon (No. 43 EAP 2019). Appellants are a class of men and women who engage daily in grueling work in Amazon’s Pennsylvania warehouses. At the end of each day, workers are required to use their personal, unpaid time to undergo Amazon’s mandated security screenings before they can leave the premises. This brief asks the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to confirm that Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) is more protective than the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the current federal floor for workplace protections, therefore ensuring that Amazon pays their workers for required screenings completed onsite. Amazon and its numerous staffing agencies have argued that they may rely solely on federal workplace laws, including the FLSA and Portal-To-Portal Act (PPA), in calculating labor costs and imposing its labor compensation practices. Additionally, Amazon asks the court to import the de minimis doctrine, which allows employers to avoid paying workers for “infrequent and insignificant periods of time beyond … Read More

Bernard Alexander, III prosecutes demanding private and public sector employment cases. He has tried over sixty cases to verdict with seven- and eight-figure judgments for claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on gender, race, age, sex, sexual orientation, and disability, among other things. Over the last 9 months his verdicts include: (1) $3 million for a security guard terminated for “job abandonment” after he took emergency leave from work to care for his school age daughter (February 2018); (2) $5.3 million for a 25-year FedEx employee fired after not having his disability accommodated (March 2019); (3) $1.3 million for CFRA retaliation, for a 29-year employee terminated before his return from leave (April 2019); and $100,000 in a Title IX retaliation case where a Girls’ Soccer Coach complained of unequal treatment compared to boys sports (Sept 2019). Board Member of the National Employment Lawyers Association; Past Chair of the California Employment Law Association; 2016 CELA Joe Posner Award Recipient; 2019 Top 100 Attorneys in California; Top 75 California Labor and Employment Lawyer (2012 to present); Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers (2015 to present); American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA): Associate 2013.