The Virginia Pay Transparency Law (“VPTL”), VA Code § 40.1-28.7:9, prohibits an employer from discharging or taking other retaliatory action against employees for discussing their pay or any other employees’ pay. The law is important because protecting employees’ right to discuss their compensation makes it easier for employees to negotiate for better pay and to...Read More

In Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008), the Supreme Court held that for an employee’s filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be deemed a “charge” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial...Read More

In Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 120 S. Ct. 631 (2000), the Supreme Court held that although the Age Discrimination in Employment Act contains a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, that abrogation exceeded Congress’ authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, under Kimel,...Read More

The North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (NCREDA) prohibits employers from retaliating against or penalizing employees for engaging in certain protected activities. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 95-240 to 95-245. In general, the activities protected by NCREDA involve employees in good faith taking action or threatening to take action under certain North Carolina worker’s rights...Read More

In Coleman v. Ct. of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30, 132 S.Ct. 1327 (2012), the Supreme Court held that Congress did not validly abrogate States’ sovereign immunity from suits for money damages in enacting FMLA’s self-care provision. Consequently, State employees are not able to sue their State employers for money damages arising from violations...Read More

North Carolina’s Lawful Use of Lawful Products Statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 95-28.2, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for lawfully using lawful products during non-working hours.  The law was likely originally enacted to prevent employers from trying to forbid tobacco or alcohol use by employees outside of working hours. In light of the...Read More

In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S.Ct. 792 (2021), the Supreme Court held that a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element necessary for Article III standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right. The case is important because it provides a way for plaintiffs whose Constitutional rights...Read More

In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (2009), the Supreme Court held that the protection of the opposition clause of Title VII’s antiretaliation provision extended to an employee who spoke out about sexual harassment, not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during employer’s investigation of coworker’s complaints. Statutory Background Title...Read More

Similar to the federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, which protects federal whistleblowers, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (VFATA), Va. Code § 8.01–216.1 et seq., rewards and protects employees and other individuals who report activities that defraud the state government.  In a nutshell, the VFATA provides that any person...Read More

The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, provides that any person who knowingly submits false claims to the government is liable for triple the government’s damages plus penalties for each false claim. In addition to allowing the federal government to pursue those who submit false claims, the FCA allows private citizens...Read More