employment law Archives - The Poliquin Firm

Interview with Mike Bradley on WGMD-The Talk of Delmarva

Katherine Thomas — Wed, 29 Nov 2023 07:45:01 +0000

Ron Poliquin gives a radio interview with Mike Bradley on The Talk of Delmarva - WGMD Click here for details are shared by Ron Poliquin, Attorney for Former Delaware State Auditor Kathy McGuiness.
08/16/2023 - Julia Hardy

If you have questions about your rights, we would love to hear from you. Leave us a comment here or find us on Facebook. If you us our contact us page, someone will get back to you!

The post Interview with Mike Bradley on WGMD-The Talk of Delmarva appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Interview on Delmarva’s Talk Radio – Employment Law

Katherine Thomas — Fri, 16 Jul 2021 02:30:00 +0000

Ron Poliquin, talks with Delmarva's Talk Radio host Dan Gaffney on Delaware Employment Law and Discrimination. Ron shares some examples of cases where he represents employees fighting to protect their employee rights.

Feel free to leave us a comment and follow The Poliquin Firm on Facebook . We hope you find the interview helpful.

The post Interview on Delmarva’s Talk Radio – Employment Law appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Supreme Court Update

Katherine Thomas — Mon, 03 Aug 2020 12:22:25 +0000

Ron Poliquin, DoverLawOffice.com, your Delaware Employment Lawyer.

This is a special Supreme Court update regarding the rights of gays and transgenders regarding discrimination employment. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided by a six-to-three vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, known as Title 7, bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Supreme Court decided that gays and transgenders, under this law cannot be discriminated against in their employment. That means hostile work environment harassment or discrimination. In addition, gays and transgender individuals cannot be retaliated against for complaining about discrimination based on their status as gays or transgenders. All individuals cannot be retaliated against for participating in an investigation involving complaints of discrimination for gays and transgenders.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, an employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of different sex. Basically, what happened in this case, which was consolidated in Bostock V. Clayton County Georgia, I am going to give a brief description of the facts and scenarios in those cases.

In the Bostock case, Clayton County fired Gerald Bostock for conduct unbecoming of a county employee after he began participating in a gay softball league. Another case that was part of the suit was Altitude Express Inc. versus Zarda, which Altitude Express fired Donald Zarda within a few days of him identifying as gay. R. G. Harris Funeral Homes versus EEOC, the funeral home fired Aimee Stephens, who when was hired presented as a male, but later told her employer of her pans to live and work full-time as a woman. All three employees had sued under the federal statute.

The Supreme Court stated sex plays a necessary and indistinguishable role in the decision, exactly what Title 7 forbids in regarding all these decisions. It is a but-for cause, meaning but-for them being gay that they would not have been discriminated against. So, what does this mean to Delaware employees? Well, it means that it backs up the state law, which the state law already prohibits discrimination for transgender and gays and also gives employee attorneys, like myself, an extra weapon to go to Federal Court where there will be no doubt anymore on prohibitions against discrimination on the federal level against gays and transgenders.

Be your own best advocate. If you need to get expert advice on this, come see a qualified employment attorney such as myself. DoverLawOffice.com

The post Supreme Court Update appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Pregnancy Rights for Women and Men

Ron Poliquin — Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:37:09 +0000

Ron Poliquin DoverLawOffice.com, Delaware Employment Lawyer. We are going to be talking about pregnancy rights for women and men under the law, specifically, under federal law Title 7 the big one. The Civil Rights Act of 1962 is the federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on sex.

Now when we first encountered this issue in 1976, General Electric actually fired a married employee because she was pregnant. This case went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that discrimination, because of pregnancy, was not discrimination over an employee’s sex. This may surprise us today, however predictable, there was a firestorm of public outcry over this opinion.

That led to what we know as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The Act added pregnancy and everything that goes with pregnancy, including breastfeeding to Title 7. Meaning that individuals could not be discriminated based on pregnancy. The Act provides that pregnant workers be provided opportunities only based on their ability or inability.

Just recently there was a jury, here in Delaware in the last year, that ruled that a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchisee must pay a Delaware woman $1.5 million in damages as related to workplace discrimination because they made it ultimately impossible for her to breastfeed her child at work. She was allowed only one hour of breastfeeding per shift. In addition, other co-workers complained about her taking breaks because she was breastfeeding. That created a hostile work environment which the employer did not remedy. So, that led to a large jury award in an employment case as of this year.

Now the question, might be surprising, can men be protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act? The Supreme Court has said YES! In the Newport News Shipbuilding case, the EEOC, Newport News gave pregnancy benefits including maternity leave to female employees but not male employees. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that was a violation of Title 7. You need to be assertive if you’re being discriminated against because of pregnancy gender or if you have another employment issue please feel free to contact my office. Go to DoverLawOffice.com, this is Ron Poliquin thank you for your time.

The post Pregnancy Rights for Women and Men appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Take This Job and Shove it…Or Don’t

Ron Poliquin — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 18:43:05 +0000

Ron Poliquin, DoverLawOffice.com

So, take this job and shove it. You want to quit your job, you are being harassed at work, it’s a terrible atmosphere, it is a hostile work environment, you are the victim of workplace bullying. You are sure something illegal is going on, so you just want to quit your job, and sue the pants off those guys. Put some breaks on okay, take a breather. Here are a couple of reasons you might want to do that or might want to consider other strategies.

1. You may not have a case. Here is a dirty little secret of employment law, most people cannot sue their employers. Because you can basically be terminated for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all as long as it is not for an illegal reason. To judge if it is an illegal reason or not, you have to see a lawyer.

2. Even if you have a case, you won’t see a result for a long time. Your lawyer is not going to pay your bills, in fact, he is prohibited from lending you money. So you have to think about the realities of life. Litigation takes a long time, it could take years before you see a penny from a case.

3. There may be some alternatives. If you are under a lot of stress and it is considered a medical condition, maybe you take FMLA, take some leave. Perhaps you get some disability insurance from your company. Perhaps you can take some time off.

4. See a lawyer before you do anything. You want to be able to strategize and see a lawyer, even if it takes a consultation fee for a couple of hundred bucks, it’s worth it to know your rights.

5. Staying at your company could actually help your case. I have had times when what I have done is have the employee complain to the CEO, the highest up, so no one can say they did not know about anything.

6. Did you go through your company’s mandatory reporting complaint procedure? If you don’t the employer could use this as a defense later on that they did not know the harassment or the discrimination was going on. Therefore the company did not have a chance to remedy that and should not be held liable because the company did not have a chance to remedy the situation. So, you want to look at your employee handbook and see what the reporting procedure is. Let’s say the procedure is to report it to your supervisor but your supervisor is the one doing the harassing, then they usually have an alternative reporting procedure. But you need to let someone higher up know before you leave.

7. You need income. The employment case is not going to provide that and nor will your attorney.

8. Strategize with your lawyer. What is the next best move?

9. Even if you don’t have a case perhaps you can negotiate an exit. Giving some heads up as far as a couple of weeks notice. Maybe you get a good referral or at least not a bad referral. Maybe you can negotiate a severance package.

10. Look for a job while you have a job. A job is like dating, it is much easier to get a new girlfriend while you have a girlfriend than when you don’t have one. Looking for a job is a lot easier when you already have a job, you make yourself a more attractive candidate.

11. I realize I am repeating myself, but lawyer up. Talk to a lawyer, don’t cheap out on it. Spend a couple of hundred bucks on a consult. Know your rights and then you can make your next move from there.

This is Ron Poliquin saying, go to DoverLawOffice.com…exit out!

The post Take This Job and Shove it…Or Don’t appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Important Alert to All Former and Current Connections Employees

Ron Poliquin — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:48:19 +0000

The Poliquin firm is currently investigating claims of current or former employees of Connections.

My name is Ron Poliquin of DoverLawOffice.com. These claims include, but are not limited to, whistleblower complaints, discrimination complaints, retaliation claims, unpaid overtime claims, wrongful termination and hostile work environment claims.

On May 10, 2019, the Wilmington News Journal published a blockbuster article reporting that Connections employees at their Crest South location were being directed to falsify patient records at the direction of their supervisor. I have represented many former connections employees and will help navigate you in any potential litigation. These cases that I’ve represented Connections employees in are discrimination, unpaid overtime, and retaliation.

All consultations are free and confidential for former or current Connections employees. Connections is the largest and most powerful state-funded treatment provider in the state, but no organization is above the law. We can do this together! But don’t wait, because there are strict statutes of limitations. There are specific guidelines on how to report discrimination or how to report certain whistleblower allegations.

I will protect you and we will protect you together. You need to call my office immediately and schedule an appointment. If you’re a current or former Connections employee, remember that you need an experienced employment attorney to help guide you through this process.

Thanks for watching,

Ron Poliquin, DoverLawOffice.com

The post Important Alert to All Former and Current Connections Employees appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Is It Discrimination For a Female Teacher To Be Terminated Over a Topless Photo?

Ron Poliquin — Tue, 21 May 2019 19:01:37 +0000

Ron Poliquin, DoverLawOffice.com,

Today’s question, “Is it discrimination for a female teacher to be terminated over a topless photo that was found by a student?” That is what plaintiff Lauren Miranda is claiming. Miranda was fired after a teenage student ended up with a topless selfie of this public-school math teacher, but Miranda did not send the photo to the student. She sent it to another male teacher in the district that she recently had a relationship.

Apparently, the photo was passed around and somehow wound up in the student’s hands. Miranda is suing the school district, superintendent, and other administrators on the basis of gender discrimination, seeking $3 million dollars and to be reinstated at the school.

What she and her legal counsel are arguing, in a sense, is that if the nipples in the photo had belonged to a male teacher, if it was a topless photo of a male teacher, no action would have been taken. In fact, Miranda noted that there are male teachers on Facebook that have topless photos that are easily accessible on social media platforms and never to her knowledge has that been reprimanded let alone fired.

To me, Miranda is focused on the nipples and topless photo. I would ask her some questions as far as to see if this is, in fact, gender discrimination. How has the school handled prior cases of pictures of teachers? How did the picture get into the hands of the student? Did the school do any kind of investigation? A question we have to ask is this topless photo sexual in nature? I think it would be a more clear-cut case if it was a pornographic picture of someone having sex, but here you are talking about simply a topless photo.

It is a very difficult case; I think there is a good argument to make that a topless photo in and of itself does not make you a bad role model. It is not sexual in nature. I also think it obviously helps that she did not pass out the photo, it was passed on by someone else.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that the court would defer to the school, but I would still represent Miranda because I think it is a worthwhile cause to proceed with. What is obvious here is in this day and age with everyone’s private lives not being so private and being on the internet, employers are going to have to make some big adjustments to make sure men and women are treated equally in the workplace. Especially when it comes to issues like this.

If you feel like you have been discriminated against because of your gender, please contact DoverLawOffice.com or contact a qualified employment attorney. Thank you!

The post Is It Discrimination For a Female Teacher To Be Terminated Over a Topless Photo? appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

First Year Lawyer Wins Tax Victory In Chancery Court

Ron Poliquin — Fri, 03 May 2019 14:10:15 +0000

Author: Jennifer Batchelor
Issue Date: 2005-02-23
Source: Delaware Law Weekly

When first-year attorney Ronald Poliquin sat down for a hearing before Chancellor William B. Chandler III, he was flanked only by his clients: two New Castle County residents who objected to the way the county government was handling taxpayers’ money. New Castle County, on the other hand, had called in the troops, and a bevy of lawyers from Saul Ewing filed into the courtroom.

The matter of the day was a preliminary hearing in Korn v. New Castle County, a case in which the Court of Chancery ultimately ruled that the county had adopted an invalid FY 2005 budget, and had exceeded its statutory authority by holding a surplus of approximately $206 million in its coffers.

A 2004 Widener University School of Law graduate, Poliquin represents Richard J. Korn and Andrew Dal Nogare. Korn, who made an unsuccessful bid for New Castle County executive last year, selected Poliquin to handle the litigation by default, the 27-year-old attorney said.

“Richard Korn had been looking throughout Delaware for an attorney to [take the case] and he couldn’t find one,” Poliquin said. “He came to me and I was sympathetic to the cause and I figured there was nothing to lose.”

According to Chandler’s Feb. 10 opinion in the matter, Korn and Dal Nogare alleged that New Castle County and various members of its government had acted illegally by accumulating unauthorized reserves within the county’s general and sewer funds.

Chandler agreed with the plaintiffs.

The chancellor determined that while the New Castle County Code permits the county to retain revenues in excess of its expenses during a fiscal year, the reserves must be equal to 20 percent of the respective funds in which they are held. New Castle County’s reserves had exceeded its FY 2005 general and sewer funds by more than 100 percent, the opinion stated.

Because the county had adopted an invalid budget and retained unauthorized reserves, Chandler declared that: 1) the New Castle County executive and council members may not make appropriations beyond a given fiscal year, unless those appropriations are encumbered; 2) the New Castle County executive cannot create off-budget reserve accounts other than those within the general and sewer funds, and 3) the county’s reserves cannot exceed 20 percent of the total estimated revenue of a given fund for a given fiscal year.

The court noted that any deviation from the 20 percent could be appropriated to the reserves either by legislative action or by altering the permitted appropriation for the fiscal year. Altering an appropriation would require a supermajority vote of the 13-member county council, the opinion said.

In addition to issuing the three declaratory judgments, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request to permanently enjoin an $80 million bond sale that county council had approved for FY 2005. The county wished to issue the bonds in order to fund certain capital projects, rather than tapping into its reserves to do so, the opinion said.

Chandler denied the injunction because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they faced irreparable harm — a showing necessary for obtaining a permanent injunction. Further, the chancellor said he doubted that the county would pursue a bond sale because he had deemed the budget on which it was based illegal.

In addition to the county itself, County Executive Christopher A. Coons, the entire county council and other officials were named as defendants in the action. Though the plaintiffs’ complaint was actually lodged against former county executive Thomas Gordon and other past officials, the recently elected Coons, and the current county government are still operating under their predecessors’ erroneous policies, the opinion said.

“It is left, therefore, to the new stewards of New Castle County to give effect to this decision and to put right the errors they have inherited,” Chandler wrote.

Poliquin said the county has proposed an ordinance that would permit the county to maintain its current reserves in off-budget accounts. Coons said only that the county is considering an ordinance that would “rectify the situation.”

When asked whether he had received assistance from more senior attorneys at his firm, Young Malmberg & Howard in Dover, Poliquin said that he had sought their counsel, but that the matter was his, and he ran with it. Thus far, handling Korn has proved a great experience, the freshly minted lawyer said.

Poliquin said the plaintiffs would like to see some of the excess funds returned to taxpayers, but that he does not believe the county plans to do so at this time. The plaintiffs are simply waiting to see what the county’s next move will be, he stated.

Should the plaintiffs disagree with the county’s plans, they will again look to the court, Poliquin said.

Download the full PDF article here

The post First Year Lawyer Wins Tax Victory In Chancery Court appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Who wants to be a Whistleblower Multimillionaire?

Ron Poliquin — Wed, 01 May 2019 23:04:51 +0000

Ron Poliquin, doverlawoffice.com.

A question we're talking about today is who wants to be a whistleblower multimillionaire? A whistleblower multimillionaire. And how do you become a millionaire the easy way? Traditionally you could go through game shows, reality TV, the lottery, maybe go to the casino. Now there's another way.

Blow the whistle on a federal or state agency committing fraud pursuant to either the Federal False Claims Act or the State False Claims Act, or a whistleblower act.

That's exactly what happened when a Duke University lab analyst sued the University of Duke University on behalf of the federal government showing Duke fudged data to help the university win and keep lucrative grants from the National Institute of Health and in the EPA. Duke settled the case by paying $112.5 million dollars to the US government, but guess what that lab analyst received? He received $33.75 million dollars for his trouble. So if you happen to know of any fraud going on with either federal grants, perhaps in one of our fine universities here in Delaware, or going on with fraud in money in state or federal government, contact my office, and we'll investigate the claims and guide you through the process. And you may just become a multimillionaire for your troubles. This is Ron Poliquin, doverlawoffice.com. Because remember, if you don't stand up for your rights, who else will?

The post Who wants to be a Whistleblower Multimillionaire? appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.

Retaliation

Ron Poliquin — Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:47:00 +0000

Ron Poliquin - DoverLawOffice.com,

Today’s word is Retaliation. Can your boss or employer come after you for filing a claim of discrimination? The short answer is no. If you file a complaint of discrimination against your, employer boss, whether valid or not valid, whether substantiated or not substantiated, your employer cannot retaliate against you. Retaliation can be a termination, demotion, it can be not getting a promotion, it can be discipline, it became paper in your file. All those little things that weren't such a big deal all of a sudden, they are big deal. It can be shunning being, shunned by the other office workers, being given the cold shoulder. It can be getting a reassignment, reducing hours, being left out of work activity, decisions, being relocated, being reassigned, online abuse, physical abuse.

Basically, any adverse action that is a result of you filing a complaint of discrimination. That discrimination can either be with the company itself complaining about harassment or discrimination or it can be filing a complaint with the charge discrimination with the EEOC or Department Labor.

For instance, basically what was required is you engaged in a protected activity. I am going to show you this, let's do it right here. We got Rocky and we got Clarance Mason. Clarence Mason is the boss. Okay, so let's say Rocky’s working at the meat plant with Clarance Mason. Hey yo' Clearance, you know, I feel like I'm being discriminated against. Okay, Rock, well I will check into that and I will do an investigation.

Alright, Rocky makes a complaint of discrimination. The next day, Rocky, you're being reassigned to our factory in North Dakota outside of Philadelphia. That's not a problem, is it? Hey yooh, I can't go to North Dakota it's cold there and everything. Is Clarence Mason retaliating against Rocky for filing a complaint of discrimination? I would say yes because there is temporal proximity, that is what it is called.

One day Rocky comes in & he's fine, he complains about discrimination, the next day all of a sudden, he is being relocated to North Dakota.

Rocky engaged in a protected activity complaining of discrimination.

Clarance Mason, the boss, acted against Rocky by relocating him to North Dakota. And there, I think we can find a causal link between the activity of Rocky’s complaint of discrimination and the retaliation.

So the question is, what should you do if you are retaliated against? Well if you are in the state of Delaware, yeah call me of course. Even if you cannot call me, call a qualified employment attorney. You are also going to need to file a separate charge of discrimination with the Department of Labor, or EEOC if you want to file a lawsuit later on.

This is Ron Poliquin talking about retaliation - DoverLawOffice.com. Remember if you don't stand up for your rights, who else will?

The post Retaliation appeared first on The Poliquin Firm.