Mobile version of website. Alan Banov and Associates, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 301.588.9699. Labor Lawyers, Maryland, D.C. and Virginia

About Us   
Attorneys   
Practice   
Client Information   
PORTFOLIO   
Latest News   
Location   
Contact Us   
Regular Website

CASES AND PORTFOLIO
Alan Banov and Associates is proud of its outstanding record in obtaining workplace justice for thousands of clients.

Appeals
In private practice and in service to the National Labor Relations Board, Mr. Banov has presented briefs in almost one hundred appellate cases in federal and state courts, including the Supreme Court.

Civil Rights Actions
Alan Banov and Associates has represented over two hundred clients before Federal, state, and local civil service commissions and civil rights agencies, such as:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Merit Systems Protection Board
D.C. Office of Employee Appeals
D.C. Department of Human Rights
D.C. Commission on Human Rights
Montgomery County Human Relations Commission
Prince George's County Human Relations Commission

Jury Trials and Litigation
Alan Banov and Associates has tried cases in Federal and state courts in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia (with local counsel in Virginia), winning jury verdicts of $145,000 in a Montgomery County case and $140,000 and $130,000 in D.C. cases. One D.C. case settled for $165,000 before trial.

Multi-Million Dollar Class Action Suits
Alan Banov and Associates has successfully prosecuted three large class-action lawsuits for unpaid premium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Federal Employee Pay Act for thousands of federal employees, with outstanding success:

$14,600,000 for over 1,000 claimants in preshift/postshift overtime backpay claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons

$2,750,000 for about 150 plaintiffs in another preshift/postshift overtime case involving the Bureau of Prisons

$2,500,000 for employees of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education for unpaid night pay differential

Separation Agreements & Severance Pay
Alan Banov and Associates has negotiated hundreds of separation agreements when an employee has been or was about to be discharged, most providing for severance pay. The severance pay has ranged from four to the high six figures. Sometimes the agreements have given clients other benefits (including continuation of health insurance, outplacement services, and letters of recommendation).

Recognized Prominence
Alan Banov has prosecuted groundbreaking cases that have established new law, including the following:

Goos v. National Association of Realtors, 715 F.Supp. 2 (D.D.C. 1989) (retaliation under the D.C. Human Rights Law for opposing a racially discriminatory discharge of a subordinate)

Goos v. National Assn. of Realtors, 997 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (award of attorney's fees in that case)

Kentucky Fried Chicken National Management Co. v. Weathersby, 326 Md. 663, 607 A.2d 8 (1991) (application of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the workplace)

Green v. Howard University, C.A. No. 91-4194 (D.C. Super. Ct., Dec. 4, 1992), 121 Wash. L. Rep. 629 (Mar. 31, 1993), reversed, Howard University v. Green, 652 A.2d 41 (D.C. 1994) (retaliation under D.C. Human Rights Law for objecting to discrimination based on sexual orientation)

Freas v. Archer Services, 716 A.2d 998, 1998 D.C. App. LEXIS 163 (D.C. 1998) (retaliation for leading co-workers in a class action against employer for alleged wage violations)

Litman v. George Mason University, 186 F.3d 544, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 17825 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, George Mason University v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 1220 (2000) (rejection of state's sovereign immunity defense to a Title IX sexual harassment claim)

Sharma v. District of Columbia, 791 F.Supp.2d 207 (D.D.C. 2011) (important decision involving D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act)

Teliska v. Napolitano, 826 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2011)(denied motion to dismiss retaliation suit based on an employee’s opposition to sexual harassment long before the reprisal)

Sharma v. District of Columbia, 881 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2013)(court imposed sanctions against defendant for not complying with judicial discovery rules by providing a proper institutional [Rule 30(b)(6)] witness)

Sorrell v. District of Columbia, C.A. No. 1:07-CV-854 (D.D.C., May 24, 2013) (denying motion for summary judgment to dismiss suit based on same-sex sexual harassment)

Buchhagen v. ICF Int’l, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22353 (4th Cir. Nov. 4, 2013) (reversing and remanding a district court dismissal of a suit alleging age discrimination and retaliation)

About Us    Attorneys    Practice    Client Information    PORTFOLIO    Latest News    Location    Contact Us    Site Disclaimer