Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC

04/20/2022

Here's the Spokesman Review article on the O'Kell v Department of Interior Age Discrimination in Employment Act discrimination and retaliation case.

U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Bastian approved on April 12 the judgment in favor of Kelly O'Kell after an 11-day bench trial held in Spokane in February. O'Kell convinced Bastian that she was passed up for a promotion that she was qualified for in 2016 in favor of a younger female applicant with...

04/13/2022

Proud to announce a $1.6 million (+) verdict in a federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.

SPOKANE - A large sum of money has been awarded to a woman who says she was discriminated against while working as a Realty Specialist with the U.S. Department of

04/15/2021

Is proud to be part of the team that is holding corporate America accountable to federal law requiring that military reservists get the paid the same benefits as everyone else.

Multiple class action lawsuits could soon result in paid short-term military leave for hundreds of thousands of reserve component troops.

02/18/2021

“People say they support the troops and aren’t anti-military, but their tunes change when issues come up and people have to be absent for deployments,” said Matthew Crotty, an attorney for Martinson.

“People say they support the troops and aren’t anti-military, but their tunes change when issues come up ...”

02/04/2021

Big decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a USERRA paid leave case!

A United Airlines Inc. pilot and U.S. Air Force reservist convinced the Seventh Circuit Wednesday to revive his USERRA claims against the company, successfully arguing that paid military leave is a “right and benefit” protected by the federal law.

01/05/2021

Is proudly part of a team that negotiated a significant USERRA class action settlement against Walmart.

Walmart has agreed to shell out between $10 million and $14 million to settle a class action claiming it stiffed employees in the armed services on pay when they took short-term military leave.

05/04/2020

Here's an article on the recent resolution of a USERRA lawsuit brought on behalf of Brett Gailey.

Officer and Lake Stevens Mayor Brett Gailey said he wasn’t promoted because of his military status.

03/02/2020

Is in the news on the Scanlan v. American Airlines USERRA class action.

---

An American Airlines pilot who serves in the U.S. Air Force Reserve wants a Pennsylvania federal judge to clear his class action for takeoff, saying the way the airline handled short-term military leave gave hundreds of pilots short shrift on pay and benefits.

Pilot James Scanlan asked a Pennsylvania federal judge Thursday to certify two classes and one subclass in his suit claiming the company violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act by failing to pay pilots for short stints of military leave or factor that time in when calculating profit-sharing awards.

Scanlan asked to certify a class of more than 500 participants in a company profit-sharing plan who took short-term military leave and who weren't credited with earnings for the purpose of calculating their benefits under that plan, even though workers who took other types of leave — such as for jury duty — were credited. Scanlan also asked to certify a class of more than 950 American Airlines workers who allegedly weren't paid while they were out on short-term military leave, even though workers on other types of comparable leave got paid.

Scanlan said the classes should be certified because their members were all subject to the same American Airlines policy of unpaid short-term military leave

"American and the other [American Airlines Group] affiliates universally provide paid leave for jury duty and for bereavement leave, and provide unpaid leave for military leave to all class members," Scanlan said. "Thus, the legal theories underlying the claims of each of the two classes are substantively identical, and the relevant factual circumstances and practices are the same."

Scanlan also sought to amend his suit to add a claim on behalf of a subclass alleging that American Airlines Group both committed breach of contract and flouted the profit-sharing plan's terms when it didn't credit short periods of military leave under the plan.

Scanlan — who has worked as a pilot for American Airlines for 10 years and serves as a major general in the U.S. Air Force Reserve — filed his proposed class action in September, alleging that the company violated USERRA by implementing a policy that fails to credit employees' short-term military leave toward a profit-sharing program.

U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III in June refused to dismiss most of the suit, but tossed one claim that American didn't treat short-term military leave as time spent in service of an employer for the purpose of calculating benefits under the plan, which Scanlan said was a pension plan. The judge said the plan wasn't a deferred compensation plan, but instead essentially either a bonus or extra compensation plan.

"American is proud to employ more than 7,000 retired or active military team members, and pleased to offer military leave for reservists who need time away to complete their military duty," American Airlines said in a statement. "American's military leave policy is similar to that of many other U.S. airlines and most employers in other industries."

Matthew Z. Crotty of Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC, an attorney for Scanlan, told Law360 on Friday that he and his team are "very proud to be representing General Scanlan and the putative class in this very important USERRA case."

The proposed class is represented by R. Joseph Barton and Colin M. Downes of Block & Leviton LLP, Peter Romer-Friedman of Gupta Wessler PLLC, Michael J. Scimone and Hannah Cole-Chu of Outten & Golden LLP, Matthew Z. Crotty of Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC, Thomas G. Jarrard of the Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard LLC and Adam Garner of the Garner Firm Ltd.

American Airlines is represented by Mark W. Robertson, Anton Metlitsky, M. Tristan Morales and Stephanie Drotar of O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Kenneth A. Murphy of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

The case is Scanlan v. American Airlines Group Inc., case number 2:18-cv-04040, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Stawicki. Editing by Stephen Berg.

Read more at:

An American Airlines pilot who serves in the U.S. Air Force Reserve wants a Pennsylvania federal judge to clear his class action for takeoff, saying the way the airline handled short-term military leave gave hundreds of pilots short shrift on pay and benefits.

10/13/2019

obtained a defense verdict on Gonzaga University's behalf in a $5 million ADEA, Title VII, ADA and Washington State law discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation lawsuit.

08/12/2019

Continues to prosecute a USERRA class action against Alaska Airlines.

Law360 (August 9, 2019, 4:17 PM EDT) -- A Washington federal judge won't reconsider or allow Alaska Airlines Inc. and its sister carrier Horizon Air Industries Inc. to appeal his ruling letting a pilot move forward with a proposed class action accusing the airlines of shorting pilots on pay when they take short-term military leave.

U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice on Thursday rejected the airlines' bid to immediately appeal his refusal to dismiss Casey Clarkson's claim that they violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act by not paying pilots their regular wages or salaries when they were on short-term military leave.

The judge also declined to reconsider the decision, saying that he couldn't resolve the dispute over whether wages are included in the "rights and benefits" USERRA entitles to those who take leave related to military service based on the pleadings in Clarkson's complaint alone. The question was better suited for a motion for summary judgment where outside evidence could be considered, Judge Rice said.

"Plaintiff's complaint does not provide sufficient evidence for the court to make a comparability determination on the wage issue at this time," Judge Rice wrote. "Nor do defendants provide the court with any sworn testimony or evidence by which this determination can be decided."

Judge Rice had denied the airlines' motion to dismiss in June, finding that there wasn't enough evidence in the complaint for him to make a determination on most of the USERRA claims, including the allegations that workers on short-term military leave didn't receive their regular pay while other employees on different types of short-term leave did.

The airlines asked the court for an immediate appeal or reconsideration in August, contending that the judge's order didn't resolve whether USERRA required employers to pay workers for short-term military leave if it paid them for other kinds of comparable short-term leave. However, the judge implicitly disagreed with their position that the law didn't do so, otherwise he would have dismissed Clarkson's claim over wages, the airlines said.

Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air argued that the appellate courts would have to provide clarity on the issue eventually and that "such appellate resolution should come sooner rather than later." But Judge Rice wasn't convinced, finding that there was nothing to certify to the Ninth Circuit because he didn't make any legal determinations about the merits of Clarkson's pay claim.

Clarkson brought the proposed USERRA class action against Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air in January. He also alleged an individual Employee Retirement Income Security Act claim against the Alaska Airlines Pension/Benefits Administrative Committee, but that claim didn't come into play in the companies' dismissal bid, according to court documents.

R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP, an attorney for Clarkson, told Law360 in a statement Friday that the pilot's counsel "looks forward to getting justice for the class who have bravely served our country as reservists."

"Plaintiff is pleased that the court rejected defendants' attempt to short-circuit the litigation process and take an interlocutory appeal because they disagreed with the decision denying their motion to dismiss," Barton said.

Counsel and representatives for the airlines didn't respond Friday to requests for comment.

Clarkson is represented by Matthew Z. Crotty of Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC, Thomas G. Jarrard of the Law Office of Thomas Jarrard PLLC, R. Joseph Barton and Vincent Cheng of Block & Leviton LLP and Peter Romer-Friedman of Outten & Golden LLP.

The airlines are represented by Kathryn S. Rosen of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Mark W. Robertson, Anton Metlitsky and M. Tristan Morales of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The case is Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines Inc. et al., case number 2:19-cv-00005, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

--Additional reporting by Adam Lidgett. Editing by John Campbell.

A Washington federal judge won't reconsider or allow Alaska Airlines Inc. and its sister carrier Horizon Air Industries Inc. to appeal his ruling letting a pilot move forward with a proposed class action accusing the airlines of shorting pilots on pay when they take short-term military leave.

04/05/2019

had the privilege of representing Nerissa Del Rosario in a USERRA lawsuit agaisnt Bates Technical College.

Bates Technical College settles with former teacher who worked there from 1999 to 2017. She sued in Pierce County Superior Court, alleging Bates discriminated against her because of her military service.

03/13/2019

Here's an article about a new USERRA pay and benefits class action the firm is involved with against United Airlines.

United Rebuffs Workers' Bid For Paid Military Leave
By Celeste Bott

Law360 (March 12, 2019, 9:55 PM EDT) -- United Airlines Inc. and United Continental Holdings Inc. told an Illinois federal judge Monday they have no obligation under a federal anti-discrimination law to provide employees with paid military leave.

In a bid to dismiss a case from workers seeking compensation for their time on military leave, the airline said the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act clearly states that private sector employers aren’t required to pay wages to service members for that time.

Under the law, only federal employers must pay workers for military leave, and the proposed class of United employees are asking the court to “add obligations beyond those Congress intended,” the airline argued.

“If adopted, Plaintiff’s theory would require that any employer who provides paid leave for any reason — as the vast majority of employers do — provide pay for “short-term” military leave as well,” United Airlines said in its filing on Monday. “That would result in a judicially-created exception that would swallow whole USERRA’s prohibition against mandatory paid military leave, upsetting the balance struck by Congress in enacting the statute.”

The proposed class action in Illinois federal court alleges both United Airlines and United Continental Holdings violated USERRA by not paying regular wages to workers who took short-term military leave or crediting that time toward a profit-sharing program.

Because the companies paid regular wages and salaries to employees who took similar types of leave, such as jury duty or sick leave, USERRA requires them to do the same for those who take short-term military leave, Eric White, the lead plaintiff, said in the complaint.

“We’re asking for military leave to be treated as favorably as other types of leave,” Peter Romer-Friedman, an attorney representing the proposed class members, told Law360 on Tuesday. “We think this is well-supported by USERRA.”

Employees should also be credited for their earnings during short-term military leave in calculating their profit-sharing awards under the United Continental Holdings Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, the workers argued.

But in a separate memorandum supporting dismissal filed Monday, United Continental Holdings argues that profit-sharing plan is not subject to USERRA because it’s not an employee pension benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Its only intent is to reward participants for the company’s success, even if some employees choose to invest their bonuses in their retirement plans, UCH said.

“An employee’s voluntary decision to invest his or her award from the Plan into a different plan that is designed to provide retirement income, rather than receiving a cash award, does not transform the Plan into an employee pension benefit plan,” UCH said.

White has been a United pilot since 2005 and said he has taken military leave for periods of less than 30 days dozens of times without pay or credit to the profit-sharing plan. White earned profit-sharing awards in seven of the years he was at the company, but the awards would have been larger had his short-term military leave been credited, he said.

“USERRA applies to all employee pension benefit plans, not just ERISA plans. We think Congress is pretty broad in how it identifies the entities that have obligations under USERRA’s provisions,” Romer-Friedman said. “We don’t want service members to lose out in their retirement security because they served their country.”

The suit asks the court to declare that the conduct alleged in the complaint violates USERRA and to order United to pay employees their regular compensation and credit them for their short-term military leave going forward. The suit also asks that United be ordered to pay wages to White and the proposed class members, estimated to be at least several thousand workers, and give them credit for their short-term military leave since 2006.

United Airlines is facing a second lawsuit in Illinois brought by more than 4,000 pilots who allege they were denied sick and vacation time, as well as full pension payments, while on military leave.

Other airlines have been hit with similar USERRA lawsuits. In September, Southwest Airlines Co. agreed to make nearly $6 million in retirement payments and provide sick leave potentially worth over $13 million to end a California federal suit alleging it denied benefits for brief stints of military service to a proposed class of as many as 2,000 pilots.

In February 2017, American Airlines reached a cash and stock deal worth nearly $6.5 million to resolve a class action brought by American Airlines pilots who said the airline’s pension plan didn’t contribute enough to their retirement plans while they were serving in the military.

Representatives for United Airlines and United Continental Holdings could not be immediately reached for comment Tuesday.

The workers are represented by R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP, Peter Romer-Friedman and Paul W. Mollica of Outten & Golden LLP, Thomas G. Jarrard of the Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard and Matthew Z. Crotty of Crotty & Son Law Firm PLLC.

United Airlines and United Continental Holdings are represented by Michael J. Gray, Alice V. Brathwaite and Ann-Marie Woods of Jones Day.

The case is White v. United Airlines Inc. et al., case number 1:19-cv-00114, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

--Additional reporting by Danielle Nichole Smith, Christopher Crosby, Braden Campbell and Christine Powell. Editing by Amy Rowe.