Join your colleagues from around the country for our Practice Group meetings. NELA’s Practice Groups provide opportunities for members in specific practice areas to network, seek advice, and discuss issues of mutual concern. Meetings are open to any NELA member with an interest in the subject matter area. There is no charge to attend.
Representing Federal Employees: How To Do It And Why You Should (4-Part Webinar Bundle)
Comprehensive WEBINAR presented in four parts
January 22, January 27, February 10, February 17, 2021
NELA is proud to co-sponsor this event with the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA).
$180 NELA members
$135 NELA Public Interest/Government/Non-Profit Members
NELA AARP Amicus Brief – Reagan-Diaz v. Sessions (D.C. Cir.)
Sharon Reagan-Diaz v. Jeff Sessions in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.… Read More
NELA Amicus Brief: Ponce v. Billington (DC Circuit)
On December 28, 2011, NELA, along with AARP and the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reject a district court decision requiring the plaintiff (a federal employee) to prove that discrimination was the “sole reason” for his non-selection. In Ponce v. Billington, plaintiff Jorge Ponce, a male, Hispanic, Cuban-American, alleged that in 2006 he was not selected for a senior position with the Library of Congress, a federal agency, because of sex, race, and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII. After a four-day trial, the district court instructed the jury that it could find in favor of the plaintiff only if he proved that discrimination was the “sole reason” for the challenged employment decision. So instructed, the jury found against Ponce. In its order denying Ponce’s motion for a new trial, the district court explained that it had “determined that this matter was pleaded as a single-motive discrimination claim” and instructed “accordingly,” holding that Ginger v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2008), compelled this jury instruction.
NELA’s amicus brief argued that while there is some variation in wording among statutes and different … Read More