Case Victories & Settlements

Read About Our Proven Representation Throughout the Years

Attorney Lolotai Reduced a Removal to a Reprimand

Firm Partner, Melissa Lolotai, recently convinced the Department of Veterans Affairs to reduce our client MM’s proposed removal to a reprimand. Ms. Lolotai convinced the Agency our client’s potential for rehabilitation was great, and that even with the lowered burden of proof afforded to the Agency due to the VA Accountability Act, the Agency’s removal would be overturned by the MSPB. Our client will soon be taken off a lengthy and indefinite detail and returned to his position of record.

A Favorable Decision to Reinstate our Client's EEO Complaint

Dalton C.¹ v. McCarthy, Sec’y, Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005888 (Nov. 15, 2019)

Firm Partner, Melissa Lolotai, recently obtained a favorable decision by the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations ordering the Department of the Army to reinstate our client’s formal EEO complaint. The Agency issued a Final Agency Decision that the formal complaint should be dismissed because it was not raised before the EEO Counselor during the informal complaint stage. The EEOC agreed with Attorney Lolotai that the additional claims were like or related to the complaint raised before the EEO Counselor. The EEOC found “that the Agency improperly dismissed the formal complaint on the grounds that this matter has not been raised with an EEO Counselor and that it is not like or related to the matters for which Complainant underwent EEO counseling.” The EEOC ordered the Agency to process the remanded claim and conduct an investigation of the Complainant’s complaint. Great job, Attorney Lolotai!

Click Here to Read the EEOC’s Decision.

Reversed Department of State's Improper Dismissal of Complaint

Emmanuel L. v. Pompeo, Sec’y, Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 2019002505, Agency No. DOS-0418-18 (Sep. 19, 2019)

Firm Of Counsel Sterling L. DeRamus, Esq., successfully convinced the EEOC to reverse the Department of State’s dismissal of our Firm’s Client, Emmanuel L. (EEOC Assigned Pseudonym), holding that our Client had brought the claims he raised in his formal EEO Complaint to the attention of the Agency’s EEO Counselor in Complainant’s informal EEO Complaint. In so finding, the EEOC held as follows:

Here, we find that Complainant did bring his claims to the attention of a Counselor. This factual finding is supported by the record which includes the counseling report that references the claims that Complainant raised with the counselor. Further, we find that the claims, as amended, were like and related to the claims that were initially brought to the attention of the counselor. Upon review, we find that Complainant's complaint was improperly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), for failure to discuss the matters with an EEO Counselor.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we REVERSE the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint. We REMAND the complaint to the Agency for further processing in accordance with this decision and the Order below.

The EEOC Ordered the case remanded to the Agency for an expedited investigation. CLICK HERE to read the redacted EEOC Appeal’s Decision.

Proposed REmoval Rescinded, a Client Returned to Duty

Firm Partner Melissa Lolotai, Esq., successfully convinced an Agency to rescind a proposed removal and return our Client to duty. Ms. Lolotai presented aggressive legal argument that demonstrated that the Agency’s removal action was a prohibited personnel practice; the removal action was riddled with due process violations, any one of which would result in reversal by the MSPB; and the charges selected by the agency were not supported by the evidence. Agency counsel commented that Ms. Lolotai’s written response to the proposed removal was one of the best responses to a removal he has ever seen, and through her legal argument saved her client’s job. Our client will be returning to his position, while the management official who proposed the removal will likely be facing discipline as a result of Ms. Lolotai revealing the proposing official’s malfeasance in proposing our client’s removal.

A Motion Defeated and a Hearing Scheduled

Firm Partner and Director of Litigation, Rachelle S. Young, Esq., successfully defeats a motion filed by the Department of Veterans Affairs for summary judgment against one of this firm’s clients. Our Client has brought a pending EEOC case against the VA for religious and race discrimination and retaliation arising from his employment as a Cook at a VA Medical Center. During the litigation, the VA sought to dismiss our Client’s claims without the benefit of a hearing. On April 1, 2019, this firm filed a strong, extensive opposition that argued the many reasons our Client deserved his day in court. These reasons included the need to challenge the veracity of the managers’ statements on disputed facts at a hearing so that credibility determinations can be made. Ms. Young also argued our Client had established the elements of his claims and proffered facts that undercut management’s explanations for their actions, thus supporting inferences of a discrimination/retaliatory motivation. On April 25, 2019, the EEOC Administrative Judge issued an order denying the VA’s motion and scheduling a hearing in July 2019. Our Client is thrilled at the result. He hopes that sharing news of his hard-fought victory will encourage “more people [to] come forward in situations such as these."

ANOTHER CASE VICTORY FOR THE ATTORNEYS OF THE LAW FIRM OF JOHN P. MAHONEY, ESQ., ATTORNEYS AT LAW

March 5, 2019: Firm Partner and Director of Litigation, Rachelle S. Young, Esq., wins a default judgment against the Department of Homeland Security in EEOC Case No. 530-2015-00038X. On March 5, 2019, the EEOC Administrative Judge announced her decision to sanction the agency for its egregious failures to follow the EEOC’s orders through the issuance of a default judgment. In this case, the agency had failed to appear at the initial conference or respond to a show cause order directing it to explain its absence. The Law Firm of John P. Mahoney, Esq., Attorneys at Law, filed a motion requesting that the Agency face sanctions for its non-compliance, seeking the harshest possible sanction of a default judgment. After some time passed without a ruling, our Law Firm filed a renewed motion that emphasized the adverse impact of the agency’s conduct and cited more recent case law favoring a default judgment. In a stunning same-day ruling, the Administrative Judge announced her decision to issue the default judgment just hours after receiving this Law Firm’s renewed motion. As a result of this successful strategy, this Law Firm’s client will receive a judgment in her favor without having to prove discrimination at a hearing, saving a lot of time and money.
Our Law Firm will continue to pursue agencies that fail to follow federal law and the EEOC’s rules/regulations and fight vigorously for justice for all of our clients.

March 8, 2016: Attorneys Mahoney Wins EEOC OFO Appeal Reversing Army's Inappropriate Dismissal of His Federal Employee Client's Formal EEO Complaint -- See Craig Spencer, a.k.a., Herman P.¹ v. Eric Fanning, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160606, Agency No. ARLEAD15SEP03570 (Feb. 23, 2016). In Spencer, the EEOC OFO stated the following:

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed at the Agency's Letter Kenny Depot in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.

On September 17, 2015, Complainant went to the EEO office to express his concerns to the EEO Chief about his work environment and that he wanted to resign. The EEO Chief suggested that Complainant return to his management to request a transfer to another location. On September24, 2015, Complainant requested that an informal EEO complaint be processed regarding his claim of harassment due to his race, sex, disability and prior EEO activity. He noted that employees and management in his work area were trying to intimidate him by coughing when they walked by his work area. He also alleged that they were monitoring his emails and phone calls. He even asserted that he was being followed both at work and at home. The following day, management indicated to the EEO Office that they had a reassignment for Complainant. Subsequently, on September 23, 2015, Complainant resigned.

On September 29, 2015, the Agency sent Complainant a Notice of Right to File a formal complaint. On October 21, 2015, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of race (Black), sex (male), disability, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when he was subjected to harassment. In his formal complaint, Complainant indicated that the harassment led him to seek employment outside of the Agency.

The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 CFR 1614.107(a)(2) for failing to raise the matter with an EEO Counselor. As such, the Agency dismissed the matter.

This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. 1614.107(a)(2) states that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that raises a matter that has not been brought to the attention of an EEO counselor and is not like or related to a matter that has been brought to the attention of an EEO counselor. Upon review of the record, we find that the Agency's dismissal was not appropriate.

The record showed that Complainant contacted the EEO Chief on September 17, 2015, regarding his claim of harassment. The EEO Chief sent Complainant back to the workplace and suggested that he resolve the matter with management. Complainant returned to the EEO Chief on September 24, 2015, in order to proceed with a claim of harassment based on his race, sex, disability and prior EEO activity. It was the EEO Chief who closed the informal EEO process and issued Complainant a Notice of Right to File a formal complaint when the EEO Chief learned that Complainant had resigned. Based on the Notice, Complainant filed his formal complaint alleging that he was subjected to harassment and that the harassment led to his constructive discharge from the Agency. We find that such a claim was brought to the attention of the EEO Chief. Furthermore, Complainant 's claim of constructive discharge is like and related to his claim of harassment. As such, we determine that the Agency's dismissal of Complainant's claim of harassment including his claim of constructive discharge based on his race, sex, disability and prior EEO activity was not appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record, we REVERSE the Agency's final decision and REMAND the matter for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER (E0610)

The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1614.103. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant's request.

A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment to Complainant and a copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

Craig Spencer a.k.a, Herman P.¹ v. Eric Fanning, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160606, Agency No. ARLEAD15SEP03570(Feb. 23, 2016).

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.

DECEMBER 28, 2015: ATTORNEY MAHONEY SECURES A MONETARY OFFER OF FULL RELIEF FROM THE POSTAL SERVICE AND A RESULTING AWARD OF 2015 LAFFEY RATE ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM THE JUDGE IN PREVAILING CLIENT'S EEOC CASE -- After successfully negotiating a monetary Offer of Resolution from the United States Postal Service, prior to written discovery, in his client's EEOC Case, Attorney Mahoney was awarded 2015 Laffey rate attorneys's fees by the EEOC's Administrative Judge. In the Judge's decision, he held the following in pertinent part:

The reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation. The complainant requests rates pursuant to the Laffey Matrix used by courts in the District of Columbia. I find that it was not unreasonable for the complainant to seek counsel in Washington, D.C. area. I do so based on the fact that travel time was not a factor in this matter with respect to the attorneys's fee issue. Moreover, the agency is national in scope, and has offices and employs attorneys throughout the United States. Based upon my experience in ruling on attorneys's fees applications involving cases where complainants are the prevailing parties, I find that the prevailing market rates of $500.00 or more for the services of skilled and seasoned attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area with experience comparable to that of complainant' s counsel is similar to the District of Columbia rate sought herein.

According to the application before me, attorneys services were performed from January 6, 2015, following the filing of the written complaint, up to and including September 1, 2015 at the rate of $515.00 per hour. This was a rate arrived at contractually and is somewhat below the applicable "Laffey" Matrix of $520.00 per hour applicable to complainant's counsel for services rendered during the relevant time period. Speculation aside, counsel agrees that at the time the application was submitted, the Laffey Matrix for 2015 remained unchanged and that the hourly rate of $520.00 was the prevailing rate for experienced attorneys of his caliber.

I find that attorneys compensation should be allowed at the hourly rate of $520.00, the prevailing Laffey-set rate for attorneys of Mr. Mahoney's experience and skill. Consequently, I conclude that complainant is entitled to recover allowable attorneys's fees in the amount of $13,520.00 (26 hours at $520.00 per hour).

Cozad v. Brennan, Postmaster Gen., USPS, EEOC NO. 550-2015-00268X, AGENCY NO. 4F-956-0137-14 (Oct. 13, 2015)(emphasis added), which became the EEOC's final decision on Nov. 27, 2015, when the Agency failed to file an appeal. The USPS paid the monetary relief and attorneys' fees on December 4, 2015.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015: ATTORNEY MAHONEY'S CLIENT AWARDED NEARLY $330,000 BY THE EEOC: Attorney John Mahoney successfully litigated the recent federal employee EEOC case of Complainant [Client's name disguised to protect confidentiality] v. Secretary, Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Case No. 531-2011-00095X (EEOC Baltimore Field Office, Shubow, Admin. J. Mar. 31, 2015)(which became the EEOC’s Final Decision on May 15, 2015). In that case, the parties, Complainant and the U.S.Dept. of the Army (hereinafter Agency), finalized and executed a settlement agreement on August 2, 2011 regarding liability. The EEOC’s March 31, 2015 Order Entering Judgment held the following:

A hearing on damages was held in the Baltimore Office of the EEOC on September 19, 2012. A Bench Decision was issued on April 24, 2014. Complainant was awarded $200,000 in non-pecuniary damages and $6,600 in pecuniary damages for a total award of $206,600. Complainant filed her Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs on May 27, 2014. The Agency responded on July 3, 2014. The Decision on Attorney's Fees was issued on March 17, 2015. The Agency was ORDERED to pay Attorney's Fees of $120,760.32 and costs of $2,022.42. Judgment is entered in favor of Complainant with respect to the items and amounts set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

The EEOC’s Decision went on to refer to Attorney Mahoney as follows:

From January 2010 through March 2014, former Tully Rinckey P.L.L.C. Partner John Mahoney, acted as the supervisory Partner in this matter. C. Ex. 9, Declaration of John Mahoney. Under the 2013 Laffey Matrix, the prevailing market rate for Mahoney's time is $510 per hour. See C. Ex; 2 Spreadsheets of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Mahoney detailed his education, years of litigation and extensive federal employment law experience. See C. Ex. 9, Declaration of John Mahoney.

Complainant v. Secretary, Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Case No. 531-2011-00095X (EEOC Baltimore Field Office Admin. J. Shubow Mar. 31, 2015)(which became the EEOC’s Final Decision on May 15, 2015)(emphasis added). The Agency paid the ordered awards in September 2015.

Cohen v. Department of Homeland Security (ICE), MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-12-0427-I-1 (Jun. 19, 2014)(nonprecedential)(Attorney Mahoney successfully litigated this U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or "the Board") Petition for Review, resulting in the MSPB modifying its administrative judge's Initial Decision, which upheld Ms. Cohen's removal from federal service, and ordering the agency to: a) cancel the removal action and substitute a 90-day suspension effective March 30, 2012; b) pay the appellant the correct amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits; and c) notifying the appellant that she may be entitled to be paid by the agency for her reasonable attorneys fees and costs).

O'Keefe v. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130848 (Jun. 11, 2013) -- Attorney John Mahoney supervised the successful representation of this complainant before the EEOC. The Commission held that the complainant, a carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, alleged that the agency subjected her to ongoing discriminatory harassment based on race (Caucasian), religion (Catholic and Reiki practitioner), color (white), and age (58). The EEOC found that the agency subjected her to harassment based on race and color. The Complainant established a prima facie case of a racially motivated hostile work environment. She provided evidence that she was a frequent victim of badgering, berating, nitpicking, and criticism in front of her coworkers, as well as excessive monitoring by her African-American supervisor. She submitted testimony that unlike other employees not of her race, the supervisor made her perform overtime work, goaded her to file an EEO complaint, issued her three disciplinary suspensions, and 10 predisciplinary interviews. The Complainant presented evidence that the supervisor engaged in similar negative behavior toward two other Caucasian employees and treated African-American employees more favorably. The Complainant asserted that she turned to the postmaster for assistance, but nothing was done. The Commission held that the supervisor's affidavit was "largely nonresponsive" to the questions asked by the EEO investigator. The supervisor could not recall whether she forced the carrier to work overtime or whether she treated African-American employees in the same way she treated the carrier. The postmaster also said that he did not recall anything about the situation. The EEOC found that the agency failed to rebut the initial inference of discrimination created by the Complainant's prima facie case. The EEOC held that an agency's failure to provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions will result in a finding of discrimination.

On May 14, 2012, following Attorney John Mahoney’s preparation and submission of Complainant’s Motion for A Decision Without a Hearing (Summary Judgment), which the assigned EEOC Administrative Judge said he would grant on May 15, 2012, unless the case settled before then, Attorney John Mahoney entered into the following settlement agreement on behalf of his federal employee client, which settlement agreement was subsequently specifically enforced on settlement breach appeal and a published Reconsideration Request by the EEOC:

4. In exchange for the promises of the Complainant in paragraphs 1-3 of this agreement, the parties agree that:

1. The Agency shall reinstate the Complainant, effective May 16, 2010, to YK-1811-02, Criminal Investigator, and will promote him effective the same day to YK-1811-03, Criminal Investigator, earning $90,343 per annum (base pay). Appropriate locality pay and LEAP are in addition to this rate, which will place the Complainant at the equivalent GS-14 Step 3. Complainant agrees that this grade and step represents where he would be placed on the GS-14 pay chart provided all within grade increases and pay increases due to NSPS share/pay raise allocations he would have received (median rate given to all Agency employees who received a rating of 3) had taken place during the period October 2006 to May 16, 2010 and his promotion was effective May 16, 2010.

2. The Agency shall provide back pay to the complainant in the amount he would have earned 2006-2010, with LEAP at the corresponding rates, less disability amounts received from OWCP, with interest.

1. For purposes of this calculation, Complainant acknowledges that he did receive LEAP at the 2006 rate from OWCP for all periods except April 26, 2010 to May 16, 2010.
2. For purposes of this paragraph, the Agency acknowledges that Complainant was not paid at all during the time April 26, 2010 through May 16, 2010.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, the Agency acknowledges that scheduled award payments are not to be considered.
4. Complainant will also be paid NSPS bonuses for NSPS years 2008-2010 in the amounts of $1,171.00, $809.00, and $451.00, respectively.

Complainant acknowledges that the Defense Finance and Accounting Center (DFAS) will calculate OPM estimated earnings, subtract OWCP payments, and the Agency is liable for the difference.

3. During the period between of time after May 16, 2010 and the effective date of the agreement, certain additional personnel actions would have occurred, as follows:

1. Complainant would have converted out of NSPS on July 18, 2010. Because he had just been promoted, there would have been no pay adjustments in July 2010.
2. The Complainant’s next within grade increase would have occurred May 22, 2011, placing the complainant at GS-14, Step 4.
3. Complainant’s next within grade increase will occur on or about May 22, 2013.

The Agency shall provide back pay to the Complainant in the amount he would have earned year to year, with LEAP at the corresponding rates, less amounts received for OWCP, if any, with interest.

4. Complainant agrees to have the following deducted from his back pay: all Federal, state and local taxes (not to include Agency’s share of Social Security and Medicare), and any other ordinary withholdings, including but not limited to Complainant’s contributions to FLERS retirement; Social Security; Medicare; Complainant’s contributions to TSP at previously elected rates, provided, however, such elections are within the IRS allowance for maximum elective deferrals for each year; and any increased amounts withheld for FEGLI premiums. The Agency agrees to make the required agency contributions to FLERS retirement and Social Security and the maximum employer contribution to TSP in accordance with government regulations and Complainant’s contributions (e.g., maximum TSP contribution by employer, provided Complainant’s previous TSP elections reach the threshold for maximum employer matching contributions).

5. Complainant shall be restored annual leave at the rate of 8 hours per pay period, and sick leave at the rate of 4 hours per pay period for the period of time between July 1, 2008 and May 16, 2010, subject to limits on the amount of maximum annual leave restoration, if any, and subject to the length of time in which such leave must be used or forfeited.

5. The Agency shall pay the Complainant $275,000 in compensatory damages.

6. The Agency shall pay the Complainant’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $193,300.

James G. Hamilton v. Michael B. Donley, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 0520130469, EEOC OFO Appeal No. 0120130367, EEOC Case Nos. 531-2011-00114X, 570-2011-00138X, Agency No. AFCARO-0U1R-02H11 (Dec. 20, 2013)(Settlement Agreement (May 14, 2012)).

Hussey v. United States Department of Agriculture - The MSPB issued three final decisions awarding over $45,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees based upon the successfully enforced settlement of the appellant’s removal appeal. In one of those decisions, the Board held that “the appellant met his burden of showing that he is the prevailing party, he incurred attorneys fees and that an award of attorneys’ fees is warranted in the interest of justice.” E.g., Hussey v. United States Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket No. DA-0752-10-0130-A-1 (Jan. 6, 2011).

Farrell v. Dep't of Treasury, EEOC Petition No. 0420070019 (Oct. 24, 2008); see also Farrell v. Dep't of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 07A20043 (May 3, 2003) -- More than five years after the EEOC initially affirmed an EEOC Administrative Judge's decision finding the U.S. Department of the Treasury liable for sex discrimination when Petitioner was not selected for an SES position, the Commission once again ordered the U.S. Department of the Treasury to calculate the Petitioner's salary based upon the assumption that she would have received the highest performance review available for each review period and should award benefits that the average outstanding SES employee at the agency received during each fiscal year at issue. Further, the EEOC found the Petitioner entitled to receive additional attorneys fees, as she was again the prevailing party.

Steven A. Johnson v. Mike Johanns, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, EEOC CASE No. 520-2006-00120X, Agency No. FSA 2005-00711 (EEOC New York District Office, Boston Area Office, Default Judgment Sanctions Order Issued Jan. 22, 2007) -- John P. Mahoney directed the litigation that led to full relief for a terminated Federal Employee in a novel Race & National Origin Discrimination by Association and "Regarded as" Disability Discrimination case.

John P. Mahoney represented a manager at the Federal Election Commission in successfully settling her claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation against that agency. See The Washington Post, Mar. 8, 2006, The Federal Page.

John P. Mahoney settled a disabled cancer survivor's claim of disability discrimination and retaliation in federal employment against the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. See the GazetteNewspaper June 3, 2005.

Cornyn v. Department of the Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0351-02-0576-I-1 (Sep. 30, 2003) -- John Mahoney represented the U.S. Department of the Treasury to successfully defend this MSPB Reduction in Force (RIF) MSPB appeal and Petition for Review.

Farrell v. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 07A20043 (May 5, 2003) -- John Mahoney won a finding of discrimination and an award of full relief, with retroactive promotion to the SES level, backpay, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees in excess of $100,000, in a federal employee sex discrimination case before the EEOC.

Flythe v. Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01972258 (2000) -- John P. Mahoney won a finding of discrimination and an award of full relief, with backpay and compensatory damages in excess of $100,000, in a Wage Grade-level federal employee "direct evidence" race and perceived disability discrimination case before the EEOC. In "The DIGEST Of Equal Employment Opportunity Law," the EEOC said the following about Attorney Mahoney's victory in the Flythedecision:

Dong v. Smithsonian Institution, 125 F.3d 877 (D.C. Cir. 1997), reh'g denied, No. 96-503 (1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 922 (1998) -- John P. Mahoney co-authored a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States as an attorneys of record in a case, which, with the assistance of AFGE, helped lead to legislation treating the Smithsonian Institution as an agency under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Dong v. Smithsonian Institution, 943 F. Supp. 69 (D.D.C. 1996) -- John P. Mahoney successfully tried, as an attorneys of record, a federal employee's case of first impression before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which was the first case awarding compensatory damages under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

Wheeler v. District of Columbia (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 1995) -- John P. Mahoneysuccessfully prosecuted and argued a motion for summary judgment in a multi-million dollar class action against the U.S. and D.C. Governments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a class of all (over 400) retired U.S. Park Police officers, which case was covered in the press.

Publications & Presentations

Here is a sample of Attorney Mahoney's publications:

• "What Rights To Workplace Privacy Do Federal Employees Have?" published in THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (January 2011).

• John Mahoney is the author of the 2002 Federal EEO Handbook

• John Mahoney is the co-author of the book entitled Federal Employees Legal Survival Guide, How to Protect & Enforce Your Job Rights, 1st Edition (National Employee Rights Institute ed., Jul. 1999).

• J. Mahoney & P. Jeffrey, "Regulations Strip DHS Employee Appeal Rights," Commentary Article in The Federal Times Newspaper (Dec. 10, 2007).

• Mr. Mahoney was quoted extensively in the August 15, 2007 issue of the CyberFEDS online newsletter in an article by Melissa Turley of CyberFEDS Washington Bureau entitled "EEOC: Fewer Employees Finish ADR Counseling."

• "Developments in U.S. Government Labour & Employment Law That May Have International Implications: Unfortunate Events In History: The Recent Disenfranchisement Of American Employees Labour And Employment Rights," Center for International Legal Studies Labor and Employment Law Symposium, Salzburg, Austria (Jun. 29, 2007).

• "Decision Leaves Older Employees at Risk for Retaliation", Article in The Federal Times Newspaper (June 11, 2007).

• "How to Save Time on EEO Investigations," Article in The Federal Times Newspaper (Jul. 24, 2006).

• "Homeland Personnel Changes Leave Employees Vulnerable," Article in The Federal Times Newspaper (Aug. 15, 2005).

• Interview, Municipal Notebook on Montgomery Municipal Cable, Channel 16 for political commentary (Mar. 2005).

• Articles in FEDAGENT E-Report (Aug & Mar. 6, 2003 issues).

• "Legal Analysis: Misconduct Investigations And Exceptions To The Privacy Act," FEDMANAGER ON-LINE NEWSLETTER. (May 23, 2000).

• "EEOC's New Federal Sector Regulations and Management Directive 110: an Overview," THE D.C. Bar LABOR. & EMPLOYMENT LAW. SECTION'S NEWSLETTER, No.3. (Winter 1999-2000), at 13.

• "Official Public Statement Regarding the EEOC’s Proposed Federal Sector Complaint Regulations," (D.C. BAR LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW SECTION, Apr. 1998).

• "Official National Comments On The EEOC’s Proposed Federal Sector Regulations" (THE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (NELA), Apr. 1998), reprinted in NELA’S EMPLOYEE ADVOCATE.

• "Reckless Disregard: Intentional And Willful Violations of the Privacy Act’s Investigatory Requirements," The Federal Lawyer Magazine, May 1997, at 38.

• "MSPB Non-Local Attorney Fees Awards: Recognizing the Strong Interest of Geographic Latitude in the Selection of Counsel," 95 FED. MERIT SYSTEMS REP. 35 (Aug. 28, 1995), reprinted in FEDERAL MERIT SYSTEMS 1996 DESK BOOK, Part IV, at 19, (3d ed. LRP Publications).

John Mahoney, Esq., Attorney at Law, is a Top Rated Washington, DC lawyer specializing in representing federal employees, unions, employee associations, contractors, and agencies in federal employment law cases, MSPB appeals, EEO complaints, EEOC Cases, OFO appeals, OSC complaints, agency or Congressional conduct investigations, performance cases, proposed disciplinary actions, IG complaints, and security clearance appeals, across the USA and around the world.