Tim Coffield

The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) governs the state-level wage and hour requirements for North Carolina employers and the corresponding rights of covered employees. The law includes requirements for minimum wages, overtime compensation, wage payments, payments of promised wages and benefits, youth employment, and recordkeeping. The law is codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 95-25.1 to 95-25.25. The NCWHA covers all North Carolina employers, although certain requirements are subject...

In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a regulation promulgated by the Department of Justice did not create a private right of action for disparate impact discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Sandoval addressed the question of whether assumedly valid regulations under § 602 of Title VI that forbid disparate impact practices are enforceable through an implied private right of action. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 282. The Court held that th...

The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) governs the state-level wage and hour requirements for North Carolina employers and the corresponding rights of covered employees. The law includes requirements for minimum wages, overtime compensation, wage payments, payments of promised wages and benefits, youth employment, and recordkeeping. The law is codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 95-25.1 to 95-25.25. The NCWHA covers all North Carolina employers, although certain requirements are subject...

In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a regulation promulgated by the Department of Justice did not create a private right of action for disparate impact discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Sandoval addressed the question of whether assumedly valid regulations under § 602 of Title VI that forbid disparate impact practices are enforceable through an implied private right of action. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 282. The Court held that th...

Tim Coffield, attorney, and Dennis Egan and Bert Braud, attorneys, are willing and able to provide additional information about this lawsuit.
You may contact Class Counsel at:
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
Attorney
COFFIELD PLC
5374 Gordonsville Road
Keswick, VA 22947
Phone: (434) 218-3133
Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com
Dennis Egan, Esq.
Bert Braud, Esq.
POPHAM LAW FIRM
712 Broadway, Suite 100
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
Toll free phone: (844) 243-2288

In Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, (2005), the Supreme Court held that Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination in education necessarily includes a prohibition on retaliation against individuals for opposing sex discrimination. Consequently, Title IX’s private right of action encompasses claims of retaliation against an individual because she or he has complained about sex discrimination in education programs.
Background on Title IX: Prohibition on Sex Discrimination in ...

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination by recipients of federal education funding. The statute provides in pertinent part: “No person … shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Unlike some laws prohibiting sex discrimination, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ...

In Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (1999), the Supreme Court held that an educational institution that does not engage in harassment itself could still be liable under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harassment. The institution can be liable if (1) it is deliberately indifferent to student harassment of which it has actual knowledge and (2) the harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educa...

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination by recipients of federal education funding. The statute provides in pertinent part: “No person … shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Unlike some laws prohibiting sex discrimination, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ...

Virginia’s Whistleblower Protection Law (“VWPL”) offers strong protections for Virginia workers who report unlawful practices or refuse an employer’s order to engage in unlawful practices. The law protects a wider range of conduct than that protected under Virginia’s Bowman claim jurisprudence. It covers both internal and external whistleblower activities. It allows courts to award aggrieved employees injunctive relief and reinstatement, compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remune...

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior decisions that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects government employees from retaliation for speaking out as private citizens on matters of public concern. But when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as private citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not protect their communications from employer discipline.

Virginia’s misclassification of workers statute allows workers to file suit against their employers who have misclassified them as independent contractors. If the worker prevails, the court may award the worker any wages, employment benefits, or other compensation lost as a result of the employer improperly classifying the worker as an independent contractor.

In the oldie-but-goldie decision of Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956), the Supreme Court held that time workers spend on activities performed before or after regular working hours is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if the activities are “integral and indispensable parts of the principal activity” of the worker’s employment.

Charlottesville attorney Tim Coffield explores new Virginia employee protections in the Virginia Values Act.

Charlottesville attorney Tim Coffield discusses the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark case for LGBTQ employee protections.