RECENT NEWS
Lamberton sponsors WDUQ and National Public Radio (NPR) 
Listen to our public service announcement.
Two more cases resolved with excellent results
The Lamberton Law Firm is pleased to have recovered $700,000 for two of its clients in their recent civil rights cases.
Another big recovery at Lamberton Law Firm
Mr. Lamberton recently obtained significant relief for a health care worker in a pregnancy and disability discrimination case, including a cash sum of $200,000 and reinstatement with a present cash value of $400,000. The employer will also revamp its written policies to ensure it does not discriminate against other workers in the future, and provide training to its managers on the civil rights laws.
Lamberton recovers $1.35 Million for two clients
Charles A. Lamberton recently recovered $1,350,000.00 for two clients. The first case involved an insurance bad faith claim, and the
second was a military service discrimination case under USERRA. "The key is case selection," Lamberton says. "First, know a good plaintiff when you see one. Good plaintiffs are good people who were good employees. If you see those qualities, so will a jury. Second, find where the employer failed to treat the plaintiff fairly or with dignity and respect. More than anything, juries expect employers to behave fairly and respectfully when making employment decisions. Third, find where the case is strong on damages and go with it. Lost wages and benefits are only one part of the picture. Never forget the rest."
Lamberton named to 2011 Employment Law Institute West Faculty
For the fourth time, Charles A. Lamberton will serve on the faculty of Western Pennsylvania's premier Employment Law seminar. Lamberton will present a session with distinguished employment defense lawyer Robert Cottington on the Dukes v. Wal-mart case and its implications for class and collective action litigation.
Lamberton again named Pennsylvania Super Lawyer
Charles Lamberton's peers have named
him a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer for 2010, a
distinction given to the top 5% of the practicing Bar in the Commonwealth.
Democracy Journal article online and on bookshelves now
The Lamberton Law Firm is pleased to announce the appearance of Your Money, Your Choice in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, by Cait Lamberton, Ph.D., written in collaboration with Charles Lamberton.
Lamberton Sought Out for Social Media in the Workplace Seminar
Mr. Lamberton continues to be in high demand for his expertise in social media. In February, 2011 he co-presented a four hour seminar entitled Social Media in the Workplace: Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare & Other Web 2.0 Sites with
John Johnson, Chief Counsel, Employment, at The PNC Financial Services Group, and
Larry Besnoff, partner and co-chair of the Employment Law Department at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP. The seminar was so successful that an encore has already been scheduled for August.
PBI taps Lamberton for 2010
Charles A. Lamberton taught a Basics of Employment Law seminar for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute in August and was on the faculty of the PBI's annual Employment Law Institute West in November, teaching a class on the intersection of employment law and social media, and delivering a presentation on electronic discovery with the Honorable Joy Flowers Conti, United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania.
Lamberton joins Employment Law West Faculty
Charles A. Lamberton was invited again this year
to join the faculty of the PBI's Annual
Employment Law West. First, he will join esteemed mediator Louis B. Kushner and
veteran management
counsel Pamela Cochenour in a lively panel
discussion on the effect of
EPLI on the mediation of
employment claims. Next, he will co-present a
seminar on "Valuing and Settling Employment Cases - From Intake Through Trial" with veteran
management and labor lawyer Terry Murphy of
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C. "I am
honored
and flattered," Lamberton said. "Knowing how to value a case
is one of the most important services we provide to our clients. As my mediation practice has grown over the past several years, I have learned ways to nurture settlements that I don't think I would have learned from being an advocate alone. Settlements need to be treated like a living thing; they have a conception, a period of growth and development, and eventually a birth. The mediator devotes a lot of time and encouragement during this period, but in the end, the parties have a newborn accord, and it is gratifying to have played a helpful role in its emergence."
Lamberton to moderate blue ribbon panel on Valuing Employment Cases
In September, Charles A. Lamberton will moderate a blue ribbon panel discussion on Valuing Employment Cases. Confirmed panel members are The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, The Honorable Nora Barry Fischer, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Louis B. Kushner, Partner, Rothman Gordon, P.C., Mark R. Hornak, Partner, Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., Maureen P. Kelly, Partner, Babst Calland Clements Zomnir, P.C., Samuel J. Cordes, Partner, Ogg, Cordes, Murphy & Ignelzi, LLP, and Scott G. Dunlop, Partner, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.
Lamberton quoted in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on new ADA Amendments
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently interviewed Charles Lamberton for his thoughts on the new ADA Amendments Act. Read the entire article here.
Lamberton joins PBI Employment Law West Faculty
Once again, the Pennsylvania Bar Institute has asked Charles A. Lamberton
to join the faculty for the annual Employment Law West 2-day seminar to take place in Pittsburgh in November, 2008. Mr. Lamberton will join veteran
employment defense Robert Cottington of Cohen & Grigsby in co-presenting two classes on "Hot Topics in Employment Law."
Lamberton to co-moderate seminar on summary judgment practice
On April 24, 2008, Charles A. Lamberton will co-moderate "Local Rule 56.1 - The Judges Speak Out," a seminar on summary judgment practice in federal court. The distinguished panelists include the Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Hon. Donetta W. Ambrose, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, the Hon. Joy Flowers Conti, Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Hon. Nora Barry Fischer, Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania.
Lamberton joins faculty on PBI's annual "Basics of Employment Law" CLE
Charles A. Lamberton will serve on the expert panel for the annual "Basics of Employment Law" seminar, sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, in June, 2008. "It's always a great honor to be invited to serve on the faculty," Lamberton said. "This seminar invariably fills the room. It's a great way to teach other lawyers who don't practice in the area full-time a little bit about each of the anti-discrimination laws. My good friends Jim Carroll and Colleen Ramage Johnston at Rothman Gordon, P.C. are also on the panel representing the plaintiffs' bar. I'm looking forward to it."
Lamberton expands mediation practice
Following the recent expansion of the U.S. DCT W.D.Pa.'s mandatory early Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") program, Charles A. Lamberton completed an intensive 40-hour mediation certification course offered by the
District Court and the Federal Bar Association. Mr. Lamberton is available for mediations and early neutral evaluations in all employment and civil rights cases.
"Early ADR is fundamentally an effort to settle the case," Lamberton said. "Parties pick me because of my subject-matter expertise and ability to communicate with decisionmakers on both sides. They want my opinions and suggestions, and I work hard to help them reach an agreement." Lamberton said he expects his mediation practice will continue to grow as more employment and civil rights cases are filed in court. "You can argue all day long about what's causing the spike in civil rights actions. But here's a little secret. The parties don't care. They're in litigation. They've picked me to assist in ending their battle and getting some closure , and I'm going to work like hell to help them."
Supreme Court deems EEOC Intake a Charge of Discrimination
The failure to file the proper form to complain about job-related discrimination does not deprive an employee of the ability to go into court later with a discrimination lawsuit, the Supreme Court recently ruled. Click on this link to read the opinion in Federal Express v. Holowecki.
Supreme Court finds role for "me-too" evidence
The Supreme Court yesterday decided Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn (Case No. 06-1121), a decision that is without question a victory for plaintiffs across the spectrum of civil rights statutes. The case concerns the admissibility of "other supervisor" (a.k.a. "me-too") evidence to support an inference that a particular employment decision was more likely than not infected by bias. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas for a unanimous Court, the Court rejected Sprint's suggestion of a rigid per se rule excluding as irrelevant and/or unduly prejudicial all "other supervisor" evidence in all employment discrimination cases. The Court made it clear that "[r]elevance and prejudice under Rules 401 and 403 are determined in the context of the facts and arguments in a particular case, and thus are generally not amenable to broad per se rules." (Slip. Op. at 8). "The question whether evidence of discrimination by other supervisors is relevant in an individual ADEA case is fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case. Applying Rule 403 to determine if evidence is prejudicial also requires a fact-intensive, context-specific inquiry." (Slip Op. at 8-9)
Judgment entered against Harrison Township
We are pleased to announce the entry of judgment in favor of our client and against Harrison Township on our claims under the ADA, FMLA and PHRA. This was a major victory for our client, whom the Township terminated after 25 years of unblemished service when he took a brief period of medical leave from work.
Altmire Amendment expands FMLA protections
Thanks to the efforts of Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania's Congressman from the 4th District, effective January 28, 2008, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was amended to provide protected leave for employees who need time off to handle “exigencies” related to an immediate family member’s military service or call-up for service, and to care for a family member who is injured during military service.
Stereotype at your own risk
Stereotyping occurs when a perceived group characteristic is applied to a member of the group without inquiring about, or in conscious disregard of, individualized information that distinguishes the member from the perception about the group. In this video, the office worker sabotages her colleague of middle-eastern decent simply because he is middle-eastern. She is acting on her pre-existing discriminatory belief system about persons of mid-east descent, i.e., that they are Islamic fanatics and terrorists. Our elected officials and media have fed these irrational, uncritical misconceptions by constant references to "Islamo-facism," "radical Muslim extremism," and the "war on terror." The fact is that America is a country of immigrants, and employees who are immigrants - including immigrants from the middle east or those with a mid-east ancestry - are highly talented, motivated and committed to their jobs. They deserve fair treatment in the workplace, and the law entitles them to it.
Tell the truth now, save money later
Employment is terminable at any time for any reason or no reason, so long as the reason is not illegal. Thus, while it is illegal to fire someone because of disability, or because, for example, they have filed a workers' compensation claim, it is perfectly legal to fire someone because of the color of their tie or for any other irrational or patently crazy reason. If an employer simply tells the truth about the real reason for its decision, the likelihood is that the reason is legal. But when employers dissemble and point to factors that were not really part of the decisionmaking process, they invite plaintiffs' counsel to file a pretext case. Telling the truth, even when it is uncomfortable, is the least expensive way to manage legal risk when terminating employment.
Lamberton to Co-Present Employment Arbitration Seminar
Nationally recognized Mediator and Arbitrator Robert Creo has invited Mr. Lamberton to co-present a seminar on the arbitration of employment disputes. The seminar was held in June, 2007 and received very positive feedback from all attendees. Mr. Lamberton was honored to work with one of the Country’s leading authorities on Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Lamberton to Lead Inaugural Meet and Discuss
Charles A. Lamberton will lead the first Meet and Discuss session of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Allegheny County Bar Association. These meetings are modeled on the monthly meetings of Pittsburgh NELA, which is a group of lawyers whose practice, like mine, focuses solely on representing plaintiffs in employment and civil rights cases. The LES meetings will include members of the defense bar, whose input and insights on cases are invaluable. Local lawyers are invited to attend these lunchtime meetings to share their thoughts, ask questions and generally discuss anything related to our field of practice. The meetings are intended to promote collegiality among the bar, stimulate creative thinking and help develop a shared understanding of the "rules of the game" in our field. I anticipate the meetings will be a lot of fun and benefit everyone who participates. The meetings will be held at noon on the third Thursday of each month, in the Academy Room at the ACBA's offices on the 9th Floor of the City-County Building, and the first meeting will be held at noon on Thursday, Feb. 22. The topic of discussion at that meeting will be the new ADR program in federal court, specifically as it relates to labor and employment cases.
Lamberton Named Pennsylvania Super Lawyer
The Lamberton Law Firm is pleased to announce that founding member Charles A. Lamberton has been named a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer. This distinction is conferred on only 5% of the practicing bar in each State. Each Super Lawyer is chosen by their peers as being among the best in the profession. The top 5% are named Super Lawyers based on votes from attorneys throughout the state who nominated the best lawyers they have personally observed in action. An attorney-led research staff reviewed the nominees’ credentials, licensure, and standing with the Bar, and assigned points based upon defined evaluation criteria. A Blue Ribbon panel of attorneys scored the top vote-getters, who were divided into 64 areas of practice. I am deeply honored to have been recognized as among the best employment lawyers in Pennsylvania.
Language for every case
An employment rights lawyer must be prepared to explain why it is reasonable to infer discrimination from an employer's dishonesty and dissembling. "If they have nothing to hide, why have they lied?" is a fair question in every discrimination case and should always be posed to the jury. Counsel should also explain why "circumstantial evidence" is reliable and worth crediting. Circumstances don't lie, they don't forget and they're never biased. Counsel should encourage the jury to apply its logic, reason and life experience to the question of discrimination. Tell it to use its sniff test. Does what the employer is saying make sense? Is it consistent with the employer's actual behavior in the past? Below is some useful language that can be adapted to any plaintiff's filing, especially where there is a need to educate a judge about the subtleties of a discrimination analysis.
The ultimate issue in a discrimination case is whether the defendant had discriminatory motive at the time of the adverse employment event. Marzano v. Computer Science Corp., Inc., 91 F.3d 497, 509 (3rd Cir. 1996) (“Employment discrimination cases center around a single question: Why did the employer take an adverse employment action against plaintiff?”). Because “[d]efendants of even minimal sophistication. . . neither admit discriminatory animus [n]or leave a paper trail demonstrating it,” discriminatory motive is difficult to prove. Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental, 85 F.3d 1074, 1083 (3rd Cir. 1996). Its existence must usually be inferred from the circumstances. Circumstantial proof of discriminatory motive is not only highly common, it is also very reliable.
"Anti-discrimination laws and lawsuits have "educated" would-be violators, [such that] employers’ and employees’ open use [of] derogatory epithets … appear[s] to be declining. Regrettably, however, this in no way suggests that discrimination … is near an end. Discrimination continues to pollute the social and economic mainstream of American life, and is often simply masked in more subtle forms. It has become easier to coat various forms of discrimination with the appearance of propriety, or to ascribe some other less odious intention to what is in reality discriminatory behavior. In other words, while discriminatory conduct persists, violators have learned not to leave the proverbial "smoking gun" behind. *** Courts today must be increasingly vigilant in their efforts to ensure that prohibited discrimination is not approved under the auspices of legitimate conduct, and a plaintiff's ability to prove discrimination indirectly or circumstantially must not be crippled because of crabbed notions of relevance or excessive mistrust of juries." 85 F.3d at 1083.
Where an employer's story is shown to be “weak, implausible, inconsistent, incoherent or contradictory,” or “foolish, imprudent or incompetent by comparison to its usual mode of operation,” discrimination can readily be inferred. Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2000); Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, 130 F.3d 1101 (3d Cir. 1997); Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 72 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 1995); Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 765 (3rd Cir. 1994). Once the credibility of the employer's story has been impeached, a fact finder is entitled to infer discriminatory motive. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000). As always, inferences about the employer's state of mind must be drawn from the record as a whole, for just as “[a] play cannot be understood on the basis of some of its scenes but only on its entire performance, a discrimination analysis must concentrate not on individual incidents, but on the overall scenario.” Aman, 85 F.3d at 1085.
Links
