On The Blog

The Federal Times reports that a December 2012 order issued by the EEOC could result in the Social Security Administration owing “millions of dollars in back pay to black male employees at its Baltimore headquarters.”  The EEOC order was issued after the class alleged that SSA violated the terms of a settlement agreement reached in a class action filed in 1998. KPW attorneys have proudly represented the class of African American male employees at SSA Headquarters for decades.

To learn more about the SSA class action, click here.
To see the Federal Times report, click here.

Are you a breastfeeding mother who works in the District of Columbia? Does your employer provide you with the break time that you need to pump milk for your baby?  Does your employer provide you with a clean, private space– other than a toilet stall or a bathroom– for you to pump breast milk?  If not, your employer may be in violation of the law.

In the District of Columbia, there is a law that protects the rights of breastfeeding mothers.  In almost all circumstances, employers must allow women reasonable break time in which to express breast milk in a private, sanitary area.  In 2007, the District of Columbia passed a law, entitled the “Child’s Right to Nurse Human Rights Amendment Act,” which provides that an employer shall provide reasonable daily unpaid break periods to an employee who wishes to express breast milk for her child to maintain milk supply and comfort.  In addition, the law provides that an employer shall make reasonable efforts to provide a clean room or other location in close proximity to the work area where an employee can express her breast milk in privacy and security.  Employers are exempted only if it would cause an “undue hardship” to the employer. An undue hardship is one that “requires significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to factors such as the size of the business, its financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation.”  Employers who violate the law commit an unlawful discriminatory practice under the D.C. Human Rights Law.

The law firm of Kator, Parks & Weiser, P.L.L.C. strenuously advocated for the passage of this law in 2007, and has advised breastfeeding mothers in D.C. about their rights to pump milk at work.  If you believe your employer may be in violation of the law, please contact Kator, Parks & Weiser today for a free consultation.

When a federal agency takes an adverse action against a non-probationary federal employee, it must follow basic due process requirements.  The ultimate adverse action is subject to being reversed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) if due process is not followed.  The basic requirements are that non-probationary employees must be provided at least 30 days’ advance written notice of the adverse action as a proposed adverse action unless the “crime provision” exception applies.  Adverse actions are generally defined as a suspension for more than 14 days, a demotion or a removal from federal service.

When such an adverse action is proposed, the agency must state the specific reasons for the adverse action in the notice, and the employee must be given an opportunity to review any and all materials relied on in proposing the action.  During the advance notice period, the employee must be given an opportunity to respond, both orally and in writing to the proposal notice, and present additional information, including affidavits.

The agency’s deciding official must consider only the reasons stated in the proposal notice, and the employee’s reply.  If the agency considers any additional information in reaching the adverse action decision, there is a likely due process violation and the action may be reversed in an appeal filed with the MSPB.  Additional new information that relates either to the charged misconduct or to aggravating factors supporting an enhanced penalty could be determined by the MSPB to be constitutionally impermissible if the employee did not have a chance to respond to that information.

If the MSPB concludes that due process was not followed, the Board can reverse the action, and the employee would be entitled to a new and constitutionally correct proceeding.