Brown v. Hillcrest Foods (2005)—Our firm secured a substantial jury verdict in federal court for a client following his employer's unlawful retaliation.
Brewer v. Cabarrus Plastics, Inc. (1998)—the firm represented an African American client in a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action and an action for wrongful discharge based on the public policy expressed in the state Equal Employment Practices Act alleging both race discrimination and retaliation resulting from the filing of an EEOC charge. Reversing the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict, the Court of Appeals allowed all claims to go forward. This was the first appellate decision recognizing a wrongful discharge retaliation claim base on the public policy in the Equal employment Protection Act.
Reed v. United Transportation Union (1989)—the United States Supreme Court protected the rights of Union members to bring actions against the Union for violation of rights protected by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
Anderson v. City of Bessemer (1985)—the firm represented Ms. Anderson,who was passed over for the position of Director of Recreational Facilities and Programs of Bessemer City, North Carolina in favor of a man. The firm brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claiming that Ms. Anderson had been denied the position on account of her sex. The district court found sex discrimination but was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as clearly erroneous. The United States Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the district court's vindication of Ms. Anderson's claim. Jon Wallas argued the case in the Supreme Court.
Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody (1975)—the Unites States Supreme Court fashioned the important "make whole" doctrine for remedying violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In so doing, the Court overruled the district court's denial of back pay to the class of black employees who were victims of unlawful discrimination and its economic consequences. The Supreme Court also placed strict burdens on employers to establish that tests which have discriminatory effects are in fact job related in ruling that the company's employment testing practices violated Title VII.
Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971)—the United States Supreme Court established that an employer is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from requiring employees to meet any requirement unrelated to job performance which has the effect of disproportionately excluding blacks from job opportunities. Griggs gave wide scope to Title VII and effectively proscribed many employment practices which have a discriminatory impact irrespective of the existence of discriminatory purpose. The Supreme Court's opinion held that lower courts must look to "the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation."