Straight_Eighty_Lawsuit
Member
- Messages
- 4
Over the past 3 years, the FAA allegedly failed to pay me as well as well as a large number of air traffic controllers correctly on a total of at least 6 separate occasions at two different facilities. After each incident, I diligently notified my supervisory chain of command, including immediate supervisors, time & attendance clerks, and payroll specialists to exhort them to take steps to prevent payroll incidents from reoccurring in the future.
Unfortunately, late payment of wages including overtime and shift differentials have continued despite my repeated pleas, with the most recent instance from 02/21/2023 having had an impact on approximately 11,000 air traffic controllers nationwide. In the days following that incident, I began contacting a number of law firms in the New York City and DC area to discuss the viability of seeking redress through the judicial system.
Three law firms offered to take the case on a contingency-fee basis. In a contingency fee arrangement a plaintiff's attorney receives compensation as a percentage of the total amount recovered on behalf of the client. If no recovery occurs, or if the defendant prevails, a plaintiff does not owe any legal fees to their attorney. Contingency fee percentages generally hover around 33%.
Out of the several attorneys I interviewed, I ultimately retained Daniel "Danny" Rosenthal, a partner at the law firm of James & Hoffman in Washington, DC. Danny is a talented Harvard-educated young lawyer who has been selected as a "Rising Star" in the field of Labor & Employment Law by SuperLawyers in each year since 2018. Click HERE to learn more about Danny's qualifications.
I have been corresponding/talking with Danny on a nearly daily basis in conjunction with this case and so far I have been impressed with his knowledge and response time. I am pleased with the choice I made and believe that Danny will be able to achieve the best outcome possible in this case. Danny agreed to represent me and other similarly situated employees on a competitive contingency-fee basis of 25%. Also of counsel on this case is Linda Lipsett of Bernstein & Lipsett in Washington, D.C. Ms. Lipsett is a very experienced attorney who for the past several decades has represented thousands of Federal employees who were wrongfully denied overtime compensation in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Along with attorneys Alice Hwang and Charlotte Schwartz (two Yale Law graduates also working at James & Hoffman), last week Danny filed "Taddeo v. United States," a Collective Action under the FLSA, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover liquidated damages, back pay and interest, and attorney's fees and costs. A copy of the complaint can be downloaded HERE.
If you wish to join the collective action, you can download a copy of the retainer agreement and consent form HERE. General information about the case, along with Danny's contact info, can be found at THIS LINK.
Please note that the complaint lists six separate instances that affected me personally, with three of them affecting larger groups of employees at ZDV (Sub-Class # 1) and ZOA (Sub-Class #2). Sub-Class #3 is the largest group comprised of approximately 11,000 employees nationwide. If you qualify, you may join one or more subclasses. Amending the current complaint and/or filing a new complaint to include additional subclasses is also possible. For instance, there is a group of controllers at ZOA that were denied timely compensation for overtime worked around a period of time spanning from approximately June 2020 through December 2020. I was not part of that group therefore that claim could not be included in the initial complaint, however Danny is working closely with an affected ZOA employee to create a new subclass for those affected by the relevant 2020 incidents. If you wish to include more subclasses based on incidents that occurred at your particular facility, please reach out to Danny to discuss your options.
Please note that the Statute of Limitations is three-years for willful violations, and the clock runs from the day the employee becomes aware of the violation (normally the Pay Date listed on your Earnings and Leave Statement) until the day the employee's consent to join the collective action is filed with the court. For instance, incident #1 listed in the complaint occurred at ZDV on 03/24/2020, therefore the Statute of Limitations for similarly situated employees to join the action has already passed, however people can still join other subclasses or create new ones depending on their specific situation. Again, if you have experienced any delay in the payment of wages -particularly OT and FLSA premiums- either as an individual or as a group of individuals at your facility, you may want to contact Danny Rosenthal to explore your options.
Also, one important consideration. A number of air traffic controllers have voiced skepticism about a positive outcome in this case. I believe their defeatist mindset is the result of the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the "shutdown lawsuit" brought by NATCA a few years ago (Baca v. United States). The NATCA lawsuit and other consolidated cases were lost on appeal a few months ago because the Court reasoned that the Government could not possibly comply with the provision of the FLSA while being contemporaneously bound by the provisions of the Anti Deficiency Act -the law that is applicable during a shutdown. The Court ruled that the ADA supersedes the FLSA during a shutdown, therefore plaintiff's claim was denied. In the instant case, however, the FAA's failure to pay timely wages has no nexus to a lapse in appropriations. As the complaint points out, "the delays result from preventable failure by the Agency to fulfill its statutory obligations." This is an important difference and may very well affect the ultimate outcome of the case.
If you have general questions, feel free to post here or PM me and I will try to answer them. However, please understand that I am not a member of the Bar and will have to exercise caution not engage in behavior that could be construed as Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL). I am available to share GENERAL information about the case and answer GENERAL questions, but I am prohibited from giving you legal advice tailored to your specific situation. Another consideration is that anything posted on this forum and/or any private exchanges I have with others about this case is subject to production during the discovery phase of litigation. For these reasons I would encourage you to direct any questions other than those of a very general nature directly to Danny. Communication between you and Danny will likely be deemed privileged and not subject to production during discovery. This will protect me, you, the class, and the case in general. Thank you for your understanding.
Unfortunately, late payment of wages including overtime and shift differentials have continued despite my repeated pleas, with the most recent instance from 02/21/2023 having had an impact on approximately 11,000 air traffic controllers nationwide. In the days following that incident, I began contacting a number of law firms in the New York City and DC area to discuss the viability of seeking redress through the judicial system.
Three law firms offered to take the case on a contingency-fee basis. In a contingency fee arrangement a plaintiff's attorney receives compensation as a percentage of the total amount recovered on behalf of the client. If no recovery occurs, or if the defendant prevails, a plaintiff does not owe any legal fees to their attorney. Contingency fee percentages generally hover around 33%.
Out of the several attorneys I interviewed, I ultimately retained Daniel "Danny" Rosenthal, a partner at the law firm of James & Hoffman in Washington, DC. Danny is a talented Harvard-educated young lawyer who has been selected as a "Rising Star" in the field of Labor & Employment Law by SuperLawyers in each year since 2018. Click HERE to learn more about Danny's qualifications.
I have been corresponding/talking with Danny on a nearly daily basis in conjunction with this case and so far I have been impressed with his knowledge and response time. I am pleased with the choice I made and believe that Danny will be able to achieve the best outcome possible in this case. Danny agreed to represent me and other similarly situated employees on a competitive contingency-fee basis of 25%. Also of counsel on this case is Linda Lipsett of Bernstein & Lipsett in Washington, D.C. Ms. Lipsett is a very experienced attorney who for the past several decades has represented thousands of Federal employees who were wrongfully denied overtime compensation in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Along with attorneys Alice Hwang and Charlotte Schwartz (two Yale Law graduates also working at James & Hoffman), last week Danny filed "Taddeo v. United States," a Collective Action under the FLSA, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover liquidated damages, back pay and interest, and attorney's fees and costs. A copy of the complaint can be downloaded HERE.
If you wish to join the collective action, you can download a copy of the retainer agreement and consent form HERE. General information about the case, along with Danny's contact info, can be found at THIS LINK.
Please note that the complaint lists six separate instances that affected me personally, with three of them affecting larger groups of employees at ZDV (Sub-Class # 1) and ZOA (Sub-Class #2). Sub-Class #3 is the largest group comprised of approximately 11,000 employees nationwide. If you qualify, you may join one or more subclasses. Amending the current complaint and/or filing a new complaint to include additional subclasses is also possible. For instance, there is a group of controllers at ZOA that were denied timely compensation for overtime worked around a period of time spanning from approximately June 2020 through December 2020. I was not part of that group therefore that claim could not be included in the initial complaint, however Danny is working closely with an affected ZOA employee to create a new subclass for those affected by the relevant 2020 incidents. If you wish to include more subclasses based on incidents that occurred at your particular facility, please reach out to Danny to discuss your options.
Please note that the Statute of Limitations is three-years for willful violations, and the clock runs from the day the employee becomes aware of the violation (normally the Pay Date listed on your Earnings and Leave Statement) until the day the employee's consent to join the collective action is filed with the court. For instance, incident #1 listed in the complaint occurred at ZDV on 03/24/2020, therefore the Statute of Limitations for similarly situated employees to join the action has already passed, however people can still join other subclasses or create new ones depending on their specific situation. Again, if you have experienced any delay in the payment of wages -particularly OT and FLSA premiums- either as an individual or as a group of individuals at your facility, you may want to contact Danny Rosenthal to explore your options.
Also, one important consideration. A number of air traffic controllers have voiced skepticism about a positive outcome in this case. I believe their defeatist mindset is the result of the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the "shutdown lawsuit" brought by NATCA a few years ago (Baca v. United States). The NATCA lawsuit and other consolidated cases were lost on appeal a few months ago because the Court reasoned that the Government could not possibly comply with the provision of the FLSA while being contemporaneously bound by the provisions of the Anti Deficiency Act -the law that is applicable during a shutdown. The Court ruled that the ADA supersedes the FLSA during a shutdown, therefore plaintiff's claim was denied. In the instant case, however, the FAA's failure to pay timely wages has no nexus to a lapse in appropriations. As the complaint points out, "the delays result from preventable failure by the Agency to fulfill its statutory obligations." This is an important difference and may very well affect the ultimate outcome of the case.
If you have general questions, feel free to post here or PM me and I will try to answer them. However, please understand that I am not a member of the Bar and will have to exercise caution not engage in behavior that could be construed as Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL). I am available to share GENERAL information about the case and answer GENERAL questions, but I am prohibited from giving you legal advice tailored to your specific situation. Another consideration is that anything posted on this forum and/or any private exchanges I have with others about this case is subject to production during the discovery phase of litigation. For these reasons I would encourage you to direct any questions other than those of a very general nature directly to Danny. Communication between you and Danny will likely be deemed privileged and not subject to production during discovery. This will protect me, you, the class, and the case in general. Thank you for your understanding.
Last edited:
