violating Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days after she disclosed epilepsy diagnosis, violating disability law

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:58:45 +0000

Disability Law

Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days after she disclosed epilepsy diagnosis, violating disability law

April 10, 2025, 9:00 am CDT

A former lawyer at Ballard Spahr has filed a lawsuit alleging that she was fired for taking medical leave after suffering gastrointestinal problems and a seizure. (Image from Shutterstock)

A former lawyer at Ballard Spahr has filed a lawsuit alleging that she was fired for taking medical leave after suffering gastrointestinal problems and a seizure.

Kimberly Steefel, a former of counsel for Ballard Spahr, filed the April 8 suit in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York, Law360 reports in a story noted by Above the Law.

Steefel learned that she was being fired in October 2022 on the day that she returned to the law firm’s New York office from medical leave, according to her suit. Only 11 days before she had disclosed her epilepsy diagnosis and her medical provider’s recommendation for an accommodation in the form of a flexible work schedule, the suit says.

Steefel suffered from gastrointestinal problems and what she thought was her first seizure before beginning the medical leave. She later sought “16 reasonable accommodations for her epilepsy,” the suit says.

The accommodations stemmed from the effect of epilepsy on stamina and concentration and the need to “avoid environments pervaded by anxiety and hostility,” which can lower the seizure threshold, according to the suit.

There was no attempt to discuss accommodations, the suit says. Steefel was initially told that her employment would end no later than mid-January 2023, but the date was later pushed back to mid-April 2023.

Before she learned of her firing, Steefel had “received nothing but praise and positive feedback” for her work, the suit says.

Her suit alleges discrimination, retaliation, hostile treatment and wrongful termination on the basis of Steefel’s disabilities and gender in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The suit alleges that the firm has a history of discriminating against disabled people, pointing to Ballard Spahr lawyer job ads with “nonsensical physical requirements” that include the ability to “stand, walk, bend and stoop,” to sit for long periods of time, and to “lift up to 40 pounds.”

Steefel also alleges that her practice group, the employee benefits and executive compensation group, created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.

The group had a “systematic practice” of “replacing the junior- or mid-level female attorneys with other female attorneys at the same or lower level, thus keeping the cycle of maintaining females at lower-level positions only, and at the same time, hiring into and promoting to more senior-level positions only males,” the suit says.

Ballard Spahr provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “The firm disputes the allegations contained in Ms. Steefel’s complaint, and in particular, that she was terminated due to an alleged disability or her gender. The firm will defend the case vigorously.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days after she disclosed epilepsy diagnosis, violating disability law appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump violating constitution by deporting protesters: Suit

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 05:18:31 +0000

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a joint press conference with Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the East Room at the White House Thursday, Feb. 27, 2025, in Washington (Carl Court/Pool Photo via AP).

The Trump administration has “unconstitutionally silenced” people living in the United States from “speaking, hearing, or engaging with viewpoints critical of the U.S. government” through deportation and other means, says a new lawsuit from a Cornell University professor and two students, which points to the detainment and attempted deportation of a “pro-Palestinian” protester at Columbia University earlier this month as an example.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), along with co-counsel, is suing President Donald Trump and the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of the Cornell professor and two graduate students at the New York college for what they say is a “campaign” being waged against free speech through executive orders (EOs) issued by Trump and carried out by his administration, “particularly as it targets international students and scholars who protest or express support for Palestinian rights,” according to a Sunday statement from ADC officials.

As a result, the plaintiffs claim they “fear government retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected expression critical of U.S. foreign policy and supportive of Palestinian human rights.” This includes ceasing interactions with one another in public and isolating themselves, “fearing that their associations may draw scrutiny” and various punishments, their lawsuit says, including deportation and criminal prosecution. The ADC filed its complaint Saturday and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the enforcement of two Trump EOs — “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats” (Executive Order 14161) and “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism” (Executive Order 14188).

“The unprecedented and sweeping character of these Orders — coupled with the threat of imminent enforcement — has unconstitutionally silenced Plaintiffs and chilled protected expression, prohibiting them from speaking, hearing, or engaging with viewpoints critical of the U.S. government or the government of Israel, under threat of criminal prosecution or deportation,” the ADC’s complaint said. “These Orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and must be enjoined, at least in part. … The chilling effect is already being felt by both citizens and noncitizens.”

Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old living in the United States legally with a green card, was detained March 8 and is now facing deportation for what Homeland Security claims is a violation of Trump’s orders, which call for the removal of anyone deemed a “national security and public safety threat.” A government memo obtained by NBC News said Khalil was told this by the Trump administration: “The Secretary of State has determined that your presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

The ADC and Cornell plaintiffs suing Trump pointed to a statement from Trump after Khalil’s detainment Saturday, in which he said others would be subjected to similar treatment for their critical viewpoints.

“This is the first arrest of many to come,” Trump said on TruthSocial. “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, antiSemitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it. Many are not students, they are paid agitators. We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again.”

After Khalil’s arrest, DHS officials stated that he was detained “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” A spokesperson said the department was “committed to enforcing President Trump’s executive orders and to protecting U.S. national security,” per the ADC’s complaint.

“Following the issuance of the Orders, Mr. Taal also began withdrawing from broader forms of public engagement, including canceling speaking engagements and declining invitations to participate in public events — opportunities that had previously been integral to his advocacy work and professional development,” the ADC complaint said about grad student Momodou Taal, who is suing with fellow grad student Sriram Parasurama and professor Mũkoma Wa Ngũgĩ.

“As a result, all Plaintiffs have ceased interacting with one another in public locations,” the complaint said. “Mr. Parasurama — a U.S. citizen, student, and prominent participant in local campus protests in support of the Palestinian people — used to regularly meet Mr. Taal at political meetings and demonstrations. Since the promulgation of the Orders, they have not met in person for fear that mere association could be construed as ‘anti-government’ or ‘anti-Semitic.’ The resulting isolation has eroded their ability to engage in collective action and has undermined their ability to freely express their views on contemporary political events.”

ADC officials said in statements Sunday that they believed the lawsuit was a “necessary step to preserve our most fundamental constitutional protections” regardless of what a person supports.

“The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all persons within the United States, without exception,” said Abed Ayoub, national executive director of the ADC.

“This is one of those times people will look back on and ask what we did,” said Chris Godshall-Bennett, ADC’s legal director and co-counsel. “We will not stand idly by while the government disappears its political opponents.”

Attempts by Law&Crime to reach the Trump administration for comment Sunday were unsuccessful.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Source link

The post Trump violating constitution by deporting protesters: Suit appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump accused of violating order nixing spending freeze

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 08 Feb 2025 04:45:38 +0000

President Donald Trump gestures as he is escorted by Col. Angela F. Ochoa, Commander, 89th Airlift Wing, obstructed, as he walks from Marine One before boarding Air Force One, Friday, Feb. 7, 2025, at Joint Base Andrews, Md. (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez).

The Trump administration is openly violating a federal court order that barred the government from enforcing a controversial spending freeze, according to an emergency motion filed late Friday.

On Jan. 31, U.S. District Judge John McConnell, a Barack Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that found the spending freeze both unconstitutional and in violation of a federal law that blocks government action deemed “arbitrary and capricious.”

Now, the several plaintiff states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, are back in the same Rhode Island federal court — telling the judge his order is simply being ignored.

“The sands have only continued to shift since January 31,” the emergency motion to enforce the restraining order reads. “As explained below, there has been an ever-changing kaleidoscope of federal financial assistance that has been suspended, deleted, in transit, under review, and more since entry of the Order.”

On Jan. 27, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo in an attempt to make good on a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, which outlined spending priorities. Within hours, the federal government lurched into chaos.

In response to the specter of frozen entitlement systems, downed websites, and a general state of panic across administrative agencies, the administration quickly performed a volte-face and rescinded the OMB memo with a terse second memo that also directed employees to follow up with agency lawyers if they had any questions.

Upon backtracking, face-saving measures ensued.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt cast doubt on the second OMB memo in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

“This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” Leavitt wrote. “It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Unconstitutional and illegal’: Trump, Rubio, Musk ‘systematically dismantled’ USAID in unlawful usurping of legislative authority, lawsuit claims

In his 13-page restraining order, McConnell cited Leavitt’s post and other factors as evidence of “the government’s transparent efforts to evade” oversight by the federal court system.

In no uncertain terms, the judge barred the Trump administration from “reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant).”

Since then, a week has passed.

Now, the plaintiffs say there is very little to show that the government has complied with the order. In fact, they allege the opposite.

“Plaintiff States and entities within the Plaintiff States continue to be denied access to federal funds,” the motion reads. “These denials continue to cause immediate irreparable harm.”

The motion frames the issue as all but existential.

“Jobs, lives, and the social fabric of life in the Plaintiff States are at risk from the disruptions and uncertainty that have continued now a full week after entry of the Order,” the filing argues. “As this Court noted, executive action that is ‘in name-only and may have’ proceeded ‘simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts’ weighs in favor of temporary but decisive action. Unfortunately, such action is once again necessary on an urgent basis.”

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Few things more disingenuous’: Judge slams Trump administration for ‘thinly veiled attempt’ to avoid court over federal funding freeze

The administration has since come up with new ways to try and freeze funding, the motion argues.

“Defendants have — for the first time this week — taken the position that certain federal funds, including federal financial assistance under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act, is outside the scope of the Court’s Order, a position contradicted by the plain text of the Order and the notice Defendants previously filed with the Court explaining their view of the scope of the Order,” the motion goes on.

To hear the plaintiffs tell it, none of this is excusable even though “it is imaginable that a certain amount of machinery” would need to be recalibrated to get things back on track since funding was paused.

A great deal of the consternation has to do with time.

“Defendants contemplated an all-of-government ‘pause’ on federal funding could be implemented in the less than 24 hours between when the OMB Directive issued and when it took effect,” the motion goes on. “Yet, as to a number of funding sources that provide critical services in Plaintiffs’ States, the situation has not changed at all nearly a week after the Court’s Order.”

In other words, New York and the other states complain that while the funding freeze was implemented in short order, the government is making something of a leisurely effort to unplug the dams.

“[T]he Court should enforce the clear and unambiguous text of its temporary restraining order and order Defendants to immediately restore funds until the preliminary injunction motion can be heard and decided,” the motion argues. “The Court should further Order that Defendants immediately take every step necessary to effectuate the Order, including clearing any administrative, operational, or technical hurdles to implementation.”

In a separate, 78-page filing submitted to the court simultaneously, the plaintiffs also ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction. An injunction would have the same substantive impact as a temporary restraining order but would last until the case is resolved or until a reviewing court overturns McConnell’s ruling.

“The fact that executive agencies appear to have restored some funding only after being provided with notice of the Court’s [temporary restraining order] is only further evidence that the Funding Freeze is very much live and that a Court order remains necessary to provide Plaintiff States with relief from that unlawful action,” the second motion reads.

Source link

The post Trump accused of violating order nixing spending freeze appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.