Former pit manager files whistleblower suit against Hollywood Casino
A pit manager at Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races says he was fired in April after telling his bosses about illegal sports betting being conducted on site, though a spokesman for the casino’s parent company called the allegations “erroneous and baseless.”
“We don’t plan to litigate his erroneous and baseless claims through the press,” said Eric Schippers, senior vice president of Public Affairs & Government Relations for PNGI. “We’ll be providing our formal response to the court according to its timetable.”
Michael Barrick, a Ranson resident, is suing PNGI Charles Town Gaming, Hollywood Casino along with William Florence, vice president of table gaming, claiming he was fired three months after he said he told Florence employees were taking illegal sports bets as well as operating betting pools on casino property during working hours.
The suit claims Barrick, hired in 2010 as a dealer, became aware of the alleged activities as long ago as 2013. The suit claims Barrick discussed his concerns with several of his superiors as well as West Virginia State Police, who “declined to investigate for lack of resources and because (they were) already investigating” another issue at the casino. He claims he also spoke with an investigator who worked for the West Virginia Lottery.
In January, Barrick said he relayed his suspicions to Florence and was told to take time off while an investigation was conducted. But, before higher-ups could launch an internal investigation, Barrick alleges Florence “told all of the participants in the gambling enterprise about the upcoming investigation” so evidence could be removed or destroyed before higher-ups could launch an investigation.
Bass Pro to pay $10.5 million to settle hiring discrimination claims
Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC has agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) race and national origin discrimination lawsuit.
In a 2011 complaint, the EEOC alleged that the national sporting goods retailer engaged in companywide discriminatory hiring practices. The agency asserted that Black and Hispanic job applicants were passed over because of their race or national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Additionally, the EEOC claimed that Bass Pro unlawfully retaliated against workers who opposed such practices and that the retailer failed to adequately follow record-keeping laws and regulations.
Bass Pro didn’t admit to any wrongdoing. “The company is fully committed to the expansion of its ongoing efforts to attract a more diverse workforce,” according to a written statement from Bass Pro.
As part of a consent decree, the company agreed to strengthen its diversity efforts and its commitment to nondiscriminatory hiring practices.
The State Journal
Webinar: “For Whom The Whistle Blows” An Examination of Whistleblower Protection for Public Sector Employees
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Three experienced practitioners will survey the Constitutional, Common Law and New York State and Federal statutory protections afforded public sector employees who publically disclose information they obtain in performing their job. This will include a discussion of who is covered, what disclosures are protected, the forums where whistleblower disputes are litigated and the available relief in the forums.
Speakers:
Ronald G. Dunn, Esq., Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O’Shea | Albany, New York
Howard Miller, Esq., Bond, Schoeneck & King | Garden City, New York
Nicholas Woodfield, Esq., The Employee Law Group | Washington, D.C.
This is a free one hour webinar for questions contact Beth Gould at bgould@nysba.org. To register over the phone please contact our Member Resource Center at 1-800-582-2452
Labor and Employment Law Section Members. This is for information only; no CLE credit will be given.
Olivia Firmand
Olivia M. Firmand is an associate attorney at The Employment Law Group® law firm, where she handles a variety of employment matters including workplace discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and cases brought under the False Claims Act. She works with clients to evaluate their claims under a wide range of state and federal statutes.
Ms. Firmand joined the firm as a litigation law clerk, assisting TELG attorneys in all aspects of litigation. She was promoted to associate attorney after graduating from American University Washington College of Law and being admitted to practice law. She is now admitted to practice in Maryland and D.C.
Prior to joining TELG, Ms. Firmand worked for a boutique campaign fundraising firm that serves members of Congress. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Missouri. While at Mizzou, she spent a year studying abroad at the Universidad de Alicante in Alicante, Spain.
At law school Ms. Firmand served as Note and Comment Editor for the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, which published her analysis of a Sixth Circuit application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. She also served in the American University Re-Entry Clinic, where she helped to represent prisoners who became eligible for parole under the Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), for life sentences imposed while they were juveniles.
In her free time, Ms. Firmand enjoys cooking and taking her Corgi on long walks.
Lawyers Share Their Favorite Podcasts
Lawyers seems to really love podcasts. In fact, one of our most popular blog posts of all time was on the Top Ten Legal Podcasts. So we thought we’d ask a bunch of lawyers what their favorite podcasts are — and we received so many responses that we decided to share the results in several posts.
Here what’s some lawyers had to say:
“Slate’s Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick podcast, which is mostly about the Supreme Court, is nerdy in a great way. It has some hardcore legal discussions but also treats the nine justices as human characters in an ongoing drama.”
— David L. Scher, an Employment Discrimination attorney in Washington D.C.
“V-Sauce: Brilliant guy discussing interesting things in a brilliant way; teaches me stuff out of my usual subject areas so it’s always something new.”
— Roger Austin, who practices Election Law, Administrative Law, Real Estate, and General Civil Law in Gainesville, FL
Legal Productivity (Rocket Matter blog)
SEC Dealt Major Blow With Justices’ Disgorgement Decision
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission took a significant hit to its enforcement arsenal Monday morning as the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that agency-sought disgorgement is a penalty subject to time limits, a ruling experts say could give the SEC more headaches down the road.
The justices, including recently confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch, unanimously found that SEC disgorgement is a civil penalty and is subject to a five-year statute of limitations, overturning a Tenth Circuit decision upholding $35 million in disgorgement and $18 million in prejudgment interest against New Mexico investment adviser Charles R. Kokesh.
The high court’s ruling was a sharp rebuke to the SEC, which had maintained that its disgorgement was an equitable remedy not subject to any time limits and one that merely reinstates the status quo by requiring defendants to cough up ill-gotten gains.
“The Supreme Court is thinking about disgorgement in a very different way than the SEC has thought about it,” said Dixie Johnson, co-leader of King & Spalding LLP’s securities enforcement and regulation practice. “And the Supreme Court wins.”
Experts said the decision, the second time the high court has limited the SEC’s ability to extract monetary sanctions after previously applying the statute to its civil penalties in 2013, will be a major restriction on an agency that collects billions of dollars in disgorgement each year.
Non-Compete Agreement Litigation Strategies
» For a 50% discount, register via this link
Employers often ask employees to sign non-compete agreements or other restrictive covenants that are designed to protect the employers’ proprietary information and relationships. These agreements can be burdensome, limiting employees’ ability to engage in their own competitive business and their freedom to join a competing firm.
On August 15th, 2017, TELG managing principal R. Scott Oswald will participate in a webinar titled “Non-Compete Agreement Litigation Strategies.” Together with Andy Boling of Baker & McKenzie LLP and Rich Schoenstein of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, both highly respected litigators, Mr. Oswald will review best practices for the use of non-competes — and will provide guidelines for the high-stakes world of non-compete litigation.
This panel discussion, which will consider the perspectives of both employers and employees, is aimed mostly at legal professionals. Its organizer, Strafford Publications, will facilitate at least 1.5 CLE credits for most jurisdictions.
Topics will include the following:
- The prevalence and form of non-compete agreements;
- The employer’s perspective and considerations in drafting enforceable non-competes;
- The employee’s perspective and concerns regarding non-competes;
- Preparation for prosecuting breaches of non-competes, viewed from both sides;
- Non-compete litigation, trial tactics, and settlement strategy;
- Strategies for using and enforcing restrictive covenants outside the United States.
The presentation will conclude with an interactive Q&A session.
» For a 50% discount, register via this link
