United States

Littler Mendelson logo

As the largest labor and employment law firm in the United States—with more than 750 attorneys, 49 locations, and a practice that extends into every area and sub-area of workplace law—Littler Mendelson has the ability to provide rapid, integrated solutions for any labor, employment, benefits or global migration issue.

Littler’s international experience is long-standing and diverse, positioning us to effectively assist employers with the significant challenges of managing employees in multiple countries. Our international employment law practice consists of 100+ lawyers who have worked on projects involving the employment laws of nations across the globe. Our attorneys are fluent in 20+ languages and are actively involved in various international associations, such as the U.S. Council on International Business and the International Bar Association.

Supporting Littler's international employment law practice is a well-established network of working relationships with pre-eminent employment lawyers around the world. Littler is the U.S. member of the Ius Laboris global alliance of leading human resources law practitioners, with member firms in 45 countries and coverage in more than 100 countries.

Visit Website

Belgium-Based Employee Files Complaint in U.S. Alleging DCHRA Violations

Posted on February 4, 2010 by Littler Mendelson

As previously reported, a recent opinion by the District of Columbia court of appeals, Monteilh v. AFSCME, 107 FEP Cases 561 (D.C. 2009), expanded the reach of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) by holding that the DCHRA's anti-discrimination provisions apply to any discriminatory decision made within the district, even if the employee at issue lives and works outside the district.  Filing a claim under the DCHRA is an attractive option for plaintiffs because the DCHRA covers 18 protected categories, has no requirement that an administrative claim be filed first, and only requires a plaintiff to show that discrimination was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision.

A complaint (pdf) filed on January 27 in the District of Columbia superior court could test the international reach of Monteilh.  The plaintiff in Menns v. Howrey L.L.P, No. 2010 CA 000434B (D.C. Super. filed Jan. 27, 2010), is a Jamaican national who worked in the Belgian office of a law firm based in Washington, D.C.  After being discharged in Belgium, she filed suit in D.C., claiming that the discharge decision was made in D.C. and alleging violations of the DCHRA (discrimination based on race and national origin; retaliation; and hostile work environment).  The complaint notes that the offer letter contains an arbitration clause requiring disputes be arbitrated in D.C., but alleges that this arbitration clause applies only to matters specifically mentioned in the offer letter and not to claims of discrimination and retaliation. 

Until recently, a state's intent to regulate potentially unlawful conduct (such as discrimination) outside of its borders had to be clearly articulated.  Recently, however, the trend seems to be that the absence of a clearly articulated intent to limit the reach is sufficient. If the court does address the merits of the DCHRA claims in Menns, it will be interesting to observe whether the court will find that the DCHRA applies even where the employee is not a U.S. citizen and was employed outside of the United States when the alleged misconduct occurred. 

This entry was written by John Kloosterman.
Tags: Arbitration Clause, National Origin, Race
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.globalemploymentlaw.com/mtc/mt-tb.cgi/743
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.