Legal news and analysis, trusted referrals, legal fiction, sponsored by Radford Scott LLP
We are proud to share this great profile of Radford & Keebaugh, published on the front page of the July 31, 2014 edition of the Fulton County Daily Report. Please enjoy and share!
Fulton County Daily Report's July 31, 2014 Profile of Radford & Keebaugh by James Radford
Three years after his brother was killed by a piece of mining equipment, Richard Coots was terminated from his mining job after pointing out potential dangers. Mines use the Automated Temporary Roof Support System (ATRS) to help prevent cave ins. The ATRS is to be used in conjunction with roof bolting machines.
As detailed in this Huffington Post article, after he was hired to repair old roof bolts at Lone Mountain, Coots was told by a manager to stop using the ATRS. The manager explained that the work would take too long if he continued to use the system. Even though he had concerns regarding his own safety, Coots continued to work as directed.
During a staff meeting, a supervisor asked if anyone had any safety concerns.Coots voiced his concerns and was told by the mine foreman to see him after the meeting, at which time the foreman told Coots that they did not have time to use the ATRS. Coots’ employment with the mine was terminated the next day.
An application to temporarily place Coots back into his job with the mine has been submitted by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. In its application, the Labor Department alleges that Lone Mountain disciplined and discharged Coots for expressing his safety concerns.
“What happened to Richard Coots never should have happened,” stated Coots’ attorney. In reference to the death of Coots’ brother, “You can imagine why safety would be so important to you as you continued to work in the mines.”
If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced retaliation due to a protected activity, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.
Former University of North Carolina professor Mary Willingham filed suit earlier this week against the university for claims of retaliation. After it was revealed the university offered a multitude of classes in the Afro-American studies program that required no attendance and only one paper, Willingham spoke with a local newspaper regarding her knowledge of the aptly named “paper classes.” In what the suit alleges was an act of retaliation, the university demoted the professor.
According to this CNN article, after Willingham was featured in a CNN story addressing the literacy rates of college athletes, university officials verbally attacked her. As alleged in the complaint, the harassment by UNC officials escalated after Willingham revealed research on athletes whose reading levels were comparable to that of an elementary school student. Due to the alleged unwavering harassment, Willingham announced her retirement from the university in May of this year.
The university has admitted knowledge of the “paper classes,” but placed blame on the actions of one professor, Julius Nyang’oro. As a result of the media coverage generated by the scandal, UNC has launched a new investigation into the alleged academic fraud. Former federal investigator Ken Wainstein is heading the investigation and has requested a multitude of documents, some of which date back to 1980. Additionally, Wainstein has spoken with Willingham and Nyang’oro, which the NCAA did not do during its investigation.
Oklahoma University professor Gerald Gurney is currently researching academic fraud at UNC, in addition to many other universities. Gurney stated, “I have no doubt that the scale of the North Carolina case constitutes the most significant academic fraud case in the NCAA.”
If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced employment retaliation, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.
In a decision issued on June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a public employee who was terminated after he testified in a case of corruption at Central Alabama Community College. Edward Lane worked as the Director of the college’s Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY) program . While conducting an audit, Lane discovered that a state representative, Susan Schmitz, was on the program’s payroll despite the fact she had not done any work for the program.
As detailed in this npr article, at the same time the FBI was investigating Schmitz, CITY was experiencing budget concerns. After Lane testified against Schmitz, Central Alabama Community College president Steve Franks terminated Lane’s employment with the college. Under the guise of budget cuts, Franks terminated an additional 28 employees and two days later rehired all but two, of which Lane was one of the two.
In a suit claiming that Franks had violated his First Amendment protections, Lane named Franks in his individual and official capacity as president of the school. Two lower courts found in favor of Franks, stating that Lane acted in his official capacity in terminating Schmitz and could not claim protection under the First Amendment.
In its opinion issued today, the Supreme Court found in favor of Lane, stating that he testified “as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” In reference to Lane’s trial testimony, the court called it “a quintessential example of citizen speech for the simple reason that anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to the tell the truth.”
If you or someone you know believes they have been retaliated against and/or wrongfully terminated, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 stipulates that employers are required to provide a healthy and safe work environment for their employees. OSHA is responsible for creating and enforcing the standards of safety measures that must be met by employers.
As described in the article OSHA: Metro-North Violated Anti-discrimination Provisions of Federal Railroad Safety Act the Connecticut Department of Labor has found that between years 2011 and 2013, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. violated the anti-discrimination provisions as set forth by the Federal Railroad Safety Act.
The FRSA establishes that it is illegal for railroad carriers to discipline employees who follow a physician’s orders or treatment plan. Employees of Metro-North filed a complaint with OSHA claiming that they were issued written warnings under the railroad’s attendance policy after following their physician’s orders. As a result of such violations, OSHA ordered Metro-North to pay attorneys’ fees and $1,000 in compensatory damages for each employee.
“Metro-North’s policy of making employees ignore a treating physician’s medical instructions or face discipline is unacceptable,” states OSHA’s acting regional administrator for New England. “While Metro-North says it has since changed this policy, this type of procedure, which endangers employees and the public an is illegal under FRSA, should not exist.”
If you or someone you know thinks they have suffered as a result of unlawful actions by an employer , the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609.