Alan Banov and Associates, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 301.588.9699. Labor Lawyers, Maryland, D.C. and Virginia Portfolio Page: Alan Banov and Associates, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 301.588.9699. Labor Lawyers, Maryland, D.C. and Virginia

Cases and Portfolio

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


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