In Darveau v. Detecon, Inc., 515 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008), the Fourth Circuit held that an employee could be protected by the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act when a former employer responded to the employee’s overtime lawsuit by filing a counterclaim against the employee without a reasonable basis in fact or law....Read More

Virginia’s Civil Air Patrol Leave Law, Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:6 (“CAPLL,” titled “Employers to allow leave for volunteer members of Civil Air Patrol; civil remedy”), provides that employees who are volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol are entitled to limited amounts of job-protected leave for training for or responding to emergency missions.  Job-Protected Leave...Read More

Virginia’s Misclassification Anti-Retaliation Law, Va. Code § 40.1-33.1 (“MARL,” titled “Retaliatory actions prohibited; civil penalty”), provides that employers shall not discharge, penalize, or take any retaliatory action against an employee or independent contractor for reporting, or planning to report, to an appropriate authority an employer’s failure to properly classify an individual as an employee and failure to...Read More

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

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 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

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

In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a regulation promulgated by the Department of Justice did not create a private right of action for disparate impact discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Sandoval addressed the question of whether assumedly valid regulations under § 602...Read More

Tim Coffield, attorney, on the Supreme Court case of Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education.Read More