Employment Discrimination Lawyers, Attorney Employment Law, Unemployment Lawyers, Chicago, Arizona

Employees can seek redress for discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment by filing a suit against their employer, but must first file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) which has strict time limits for filing a claim. For example, for allegations involving almost all types of employment discrimination, the charging party (i.e. an employee alleging discrimination) must file a complaint with the EEOC before filing any private lawsuit, and must do so within 180 or 300 days of the alleged offense (see limitations below.) Only after receiving permission from the EEOC may individuals file a lawsuit. This permission typically comes in the form of a "right to sue" letter issued by the EEOC, usually only after the EEOC has found sufficient evidence that a civil rights violation has occurred. The Law offices of Justin London can provide attorney employment law that can solve all grievances of the employees. If you feel you are discriminated, Justin London will be happy to help with our employment discrimination lawyers, attorney employment law, employment lawyers, and unemployment lawyers, affirmative action lawyers. As an attorney employment law firm located in Chicago, Justin London Law provides employment lawyers who have extensive knowledge about Labor and Employment law.

Employees are protected from discrimination and other workplace civil right violations by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000e) which is designed to ensure equal employment opportunities without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII protects against segregation, retaliation, hostility, and opposition to discrimination in the workplace thus covering hiring, firing, promotions, and all workplace conduct.

In addition, individuals are protected by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (20U.S.C. §§1400, et seq.) which is designed to ensure that handicapped children receive education appropriate to their needs; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. §2000bb) which is designed to limit government restrictions on the free exercise of religion; and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §§701, et seq.) which guarantees equal opportunity of vocational rehabilitation and independent living for individuals with handicaps.

In general, an individual must pre-file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred unless he or she has first filed a charge with an appropriate state agency, in which case the complainant has the earlier of 300 days from the date of the alleged violation or 30 days "after receiving notice that the State or local agency has terminated the proceedings under the State or local law."

Notwithstanding the above, the EEOC regulations allow 300 days for filing a complaint in a State where the State or local FEP agency has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, regardless of whether the claimant has first filed a claim with the State agency.

Unless excused by the court, a action must be filed within 90 days after receipt of a right-to-sue letter.

In general, each act of discrimination in the workplace is typically considered a discrete or separate act that must be reported or filed as a separate complaint with the EEOC. Most employees have 300 days from the time of the incident to file a separate claim for that incident with the EEOC. It is important that employees file as soon as possible or a specific incident could be time barred. However, if the acts are part of an ongoing hostile work environment, an exception exists under the continuing violation doctrine so that each violation does not have to be reported separately. AMTRAK v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002) (Court held that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to discrete acts of employment or retaliation under Title VII, only to hostile environment claims.)

An employer (a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce) must have fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks (in the current or preceding calandar year) to be covered by Title VII.

Typically, to prevail on a discrimination claim, a victim must generally show (1) disparate treatment and a (2) disparate impact based on the alleged discriminatory conduct.

An employer may have hiring policies that appear to be nondiscriminatory yet may be in violation of civil rights laws if the results of the practices have a discriminatory effect by restricting employment opportunities for some classes of employees. To be found in violation of civil rights laws, it is not necessary to show that the employer intended to discriminate. An employment policy must not intentionally or unintentionally result in elimination of certain groups of people, because experience has proved that in the absence of any other explanation, it is probable that those acts were based on impermissible considerations. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978).

To refut a claim of discrimination, an employer must be able to show that its selection or promotion of employees is non-discriminatory, that a challenged test, procedure, or requirement bears a “manifest relation to the employment in question,” and that it can be justified by a business necessity. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1978).

Intentional discrimination under Title VII “is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). A plaintiff may prove intentional employment discrimination under federal statutes by a “direct method” or “indirect method.” In the absence of direct evidence, a plaintiff can prevail through circumstantial evidence under a “direct method” by showing (1) suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, or behavior toward employees; (2) evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently; or (3) evidence that the employee did not deserve the adverse action and that the employer’s reason for it is a pretext for discrimination.

Most employment discrimination cases are proven under an “indirect method,” where they are analyzed under a circumstantial evidence model, often referred to as the prima facie case standard. Under this standard, an employee must first show (1) membership in a protected group, (2) qualification for the position in question, (3) an adverse employment action, and (4) circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

The burden of producing evidence then shifts to the employer to provide some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. The employer must explain its reason clearly enough to allow the court to focus its inquiry on whether hte employer honestly believed that reason, and to allow the plaintiff to identify the kind of evidence it must present to demonstrate that the reason is pretext. Once this is done, the burden of producing evidence shifts back again to the employee to prove that hte employer's stated reason is merely a pretext or cover-up for unlawful discrimination. The burden of persuasion ultimately rests with the employee.

The Seventh Circuit has taken a broad view with regard to what qualifies as an adverse employment action, the third element of a prima facie case. An action must be "significant" to be cognizable as discrimination. The action must involve more than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. The court has articulated three generatal categories of actionable, materially adverse employment actions for the purposes of Title VII:

1. cases in which the employee's compensation, fringe benefits, or other financial terms of

employement are diminished, including termination;

2. cases in which a nominally lateral transfer with no change in fnancial terms signficantly

reduces the employee's career prospects by preventing hte use of the employee's skills and

experience, so that the skills are likely to atrophy and the employee's career is likely to be

stunted; and

3. cases in which the employee is not moved to a different job or the skill requirements of

the present job altered, but the working conditions are changed in a way that subjects

the employee to a humiliating, degrading, unsafe, unhealthful, or otherwise signficiantly

negative alternation in workplace environment.

Back pay is the most common form of relief. Back pay consists of wages , salary and fringe benefits the employee would have earned during the period of discrimination from the date of termination (or failure to promote), to the date of trial.
Compensatory Damages are allowed for future loss, emotional distress, pain & suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish & loss of enjoyment of life. Caps are placed on compensatory damages according to the size of the employer. The limits on damages are as follows:
- Up to 100 employees: $50,000
- 101-200 employees: $100,000
- 201-500 employees: $200,000
- 500+ employees: $300,000

These caps apply only to individuals. In a class action situation, each plaintiff can be awarded the maximum amount specified for the size of their company.