Call An Experienced Employment Attorney When
You Have Been Discriminated Against!

Your employment issues demand competent legal counsel. There exist over 25 federal legislative acts, containing thousands of pages of laws affecting employment rights and obligations. In addition, Colorado has hundreds of employment laws and regulations that affect your employment.

As experienced Colorado Labor  and Employment attorneys, we can assist you with navigating this immense landscape. When your livelihood depends on your employment, you cannot afford loss of your rights to inexperienced legal representation. Arckey & Associates, LLC has been a Colorado law firm since 1994. Each of its partners has over 25 years of legal experience, and each partner and the firm is AV rated by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®, signifying that our legal experience and ethical standards are very high to preeminent.

Contact our firm today if you or a loved one needs legal assistance with any of the following matters:

• Discrimination based on sex (Title VII)
• Discrimination based on race, color or national origin (Title VII)
• Discrimination based on religion (Title VII)
• Discrimination based on disability (ADA)
• Discrimination based on age (ADEA)
• Sex and Race Harassment (Title VII)
• Discrimination based on family or medical needs (FMLA)
• Wage discrimination (Title VII)
• Equal Pay discrimination (EPA/Title VII)
• Retaliation
• Wrongful Discharge
• Failure to pay wages or commission
• Breach of Contract in employment
• Trade Secret Employment Contracts
• Non-competition and non-solicitation Agreements
• Covenants Not to Compete
• Overtime compensation (FLSA)
• Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower
• Federal employee representation before the EEOC
• Federal employee representation before the Personnel Board
• Federal employee representation before the Merit Systems Protection Board
• Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA)
• Disability Insurance Litigation
• Employment Contracts
• Severance and Termination Settlement Agreements
• Defamation/Libel/Slander in employment

Hiring a lawyer is an important decision, but hiring the right attorney for your legal problem is a critical decision for you.

Just as there are specialties in the medical field, the law has become so specialized that your employment problem requires an attorney who knows employment law, but more importantly has practiced employment law.

At Arckey & Associates, LLC, we have the experience and aggressive representation you need. We have over 55 years of combined licensed attorney legal experience and over 20 years of combined paralegal experience to provide you. Hiring Arckey & Associates, LLC means you hire a law firm, not an individual attorney. You meet with the attorneys, paralegals and law clerks, all of whom work on your case. Your attorneys and legal staff then collaborate on a regular basis to represent you and advocate your claims.

Employment is your financial lifeline and in many ways defines who you are as a human being. Your job is important to you because it financially supports you and your loved ones. Your work is also an integral part of your identity. It defines your self-worth and ability to contribute to what you deem important in life. However, the loss of employment can be equally, if not more emotionally devastating than such life altering events as divorce or loss of a loved one. Losing one’s employment can cause lasting damage to a person’s sense of self.

These are just some of the reasons why the United States Congress and state legislatures around the country have passed thousands of laws regulating employment and the workplace. These laws are in place to protect your legal rights. If your legal rights have been violated, you need capable and aggressive representation of your rights.

However, you must also act quickly because in many instances your ability to receive appropriate legal remedies often has a short expiration date. In some cases, if you fail to file a claim within as little as 5 days, your rights may be lost. Other typical deadlines relevant to legal statutes are 30, 45, 180 and 300 days. Therefore, you should not wait to contact us to determine your rights and whether you have legal remedies under the law.

Call Arckey & Associates, LLC today at 866-343-5623, or complete the contact form provided on this site to schedule a consultation.

**Note: We charge a fixed fee for consultations. We will review a narrative and other important documents prior to the consultation, and meet with new clients for up to 90 minutes. Currently, the fee is $300 to consult with Ms. Hunt and $400 with Mr. Arckey.

Attorney Thomas J. Arckey

Thomas J. Arckey is a founding partner of Arckey & Associates, LLC. Tom’s practice focuses on employment law, and he also practices in civil and commercial litigation. He has 25 years experience counseling and litigating matters in these areas for individuals and businesses. His employment law practice includes working with individuals who have experienced discriminatory treatment and or retaliation on the basis of sex, race, religion, age or disability under federal statutes including Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, FMLA, as well as the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. He also handles wage disputes arising under the Colorado Wage Act and the FLSA, concerning unpaid wages and commissions and overtime requirements. He also deals with matters related to unfair competition, including non-compete agreements and trade secrets. Tom is an experienced litigator having tried cases in federal and state courts.

Tom is a recognized authority in these areas, and was recognized as a Super Lawyer by Colorado Super Lawyers magazine in 2007. He also received the Editorial Excellence Award by Trial Talk magazine in 2005, and has served as the Employment Law Editor of Trial Talk for seven years. He has authored and lectured on many articles on employment law issues. He is co-Author and Instructor of “Trade Secrecy and Non-Competition Covenants in Colorado” for NBI Seminars. He volunteered on the Littleton Board of Adjustment from 2001 to 2009. Tom also devotes pro bono legal time to help disadvantaged youth.

• Court Admissions: 1985, Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, U.S. District Court
• Date Admitted to the Bar: 1985
• Colleges Attended, Degree & Year Graduated: Florida State University , Bachelor Science, 1981; University of Denver, Juris Doctor, 1984
• Professional Memberships & Achievements: Colorado Bar Association; Arapahoe County Bar Association; Plaintiff Employment Lawyer’s Association; National Employment Lawyer’s Association

Attorney Sara Y. Hunt

Sara Y. Hunt is an Associate attorney for Arckey & Associates, LLC. Sara handles all facets of employment law. She works with individuals who have experienced discriminatory treatment and or retaliation on the basis of sex, race, religion, age or disability under federal statutes including Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, FMLA, as well as the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. She also handles disputes arising under the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the FLSA, concerning unpaid wages and commissions and overtime and minimum wage requirements. She also handles employee benefits issues that arise under ERISA. Additionally, she is adept at handling matters related to unfair competition, including non-compete agreements and trade secrets. Some of her recent accomplishments include assisting a young mother with obtaining compensation for being unlawfully terminated because of her pregnancy, aiding an experienced IT professional in obtaining over $60,000 in back wages he was owed under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and helping a terminated sales professional obtain a release from a restrictive covenant that prevented him from engaging in his chosen profession.

Sara interned for the Honorable Timothy Fasing, Judge in the Arapahoe County District Court. Prior to becoming an associate at Arckey & Associates, LLC, she obtained experience in worker’s compensation and family law. Sara published: “Dismantling Discrimination: Insight into the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,” Trial Talk, June/July 2009.

• Court Admissions: State of Colorado-October 2005, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit-June 2006, U.S. District Court-July 2007
• Date Admitted to the Bar: 2005
• Colleges Attended, Degree & Year Graduated: University of Colorado, Bachelor of Science in Journalism. 1996; University of Denver, Juris Doctor, 2005
• Professional Memberships & Achievements: Denver Bar Association; Colorado Bar Association; Plaintiff’s Employment Law Association; National Employment Law Association; Alliance of Professional Women

Attorney Christopher K. Gilbert

Jurisdictions:

• States of Texas
• New York
• Colorado
• U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of Texas
• Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
• United States Supreme Court

Education:

• Southeastern Louisiana University, B.A., 1995
• Mississippi College School of Law, J.D. 1998.

Admitted To The Bar:

• Texas, 2002
• New York, 2008
• Colorado, 2008

Professional Memberships and Achievements:

• Graduate of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College (TLC)?
• Graduate of NITA Trial Skills Course
• Graduate of Trial Advocacy College of Texas (TACT)  
• State Bar of Texas, Board of Directors (2011-present)  Houston Trial Lawyers Association, Board of Directors (2009, 2010)
• Colorado Trial Lawyers Association
• Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA), Legal Service Panel Attorney
• Commercial airplane pilot with multi-engine, instrument, and seaplane ratings

Jane Tryggestad, Paralegal

Education:

• University of Texas (B.B.A. 1982)
• Arapahoe Community College – Paralegal Degree Program (2001)

Experience:

• 9 years experience with Arckey & Associates, LLC in Employment Law, Civil Litigation, Business Litigation

Diane Shotkoski, Paralegal

Education:

• Arapahoe Community College – Paralegal Degree Program (1992)

Experience:

• 18 years paralegal experience in Employment Law, Civil Litigation, Business Litigation, Personal Injury, Insurance Defense, Medical Malpractice, and Family Law

Ms. Tryggestad and Ms. Shotkoski have both worked with Arckey & Associates, LLC for many years. They both are very experienced in employment and employment litigation issues. Both paralegals are active with the firm’s clientele and work very closely with the clients throughout the legal matter to its conclusion. Diane and Jane are both experienced litigation paralegals that have attended courtroom proceedings, jury trials and depositions. If an attorney is not immediately available to respond to your call, it is likely that your first conversation will be with Jane or Diane if you are considering hiring our law firm. While under Colorado law, paralegals cannot give legal advice, Diane and Jane have the professional skills to understand your legal matter and promptly convey it to one of our attorneys if an attorney is not immediately available to answer your call or email. The attorney or paralegal will then assist you with your legal issue, lawsuit or other legal needs. You may contact any attorney or one of our paralegals if you would like information about your legal issues or our law firm.

Practice Areas and Legal Definitions

Labor Laws:
Historically, labor laws have focused on such matters as eliminating unsafe workplace conditions, securing a living wage for employees, and eliminating, or at least, tempering the strife that often occurs between employee and employers. Since the appearance of organized labor, laws have established collective bargaining rights, and have sought to prevent either employers or employees, individually or through associations or unions, from engaging in unfair labor practices. It is well-established, by various statutes, that both sides to a labor dispute are legally required to engage in good faith collective bargaining. Modern labor laws also address such complex and often emotionally charged issues as strikes, picketing, mutual injunctive relief and lockouts.

Labor and Employment attorneys can help employers with the following:

• Reviewing client employee handbooks, manuals and policy statements
• Assisting with federal and state wage and hour law issues and claims
• Representing employers before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state human rights agencies
• Providing representation for grievance and arbitration hearings under collective bargaining agreements
• Counseling on employment agreement
• Counseling on severance agreements
• Representation in state and federal courts

Employment Law:
Employment law is a well-established body of statutes and judicial decisions covering all rights and obligations within the employer-employee relationship, including current employees, job applicants and former employees. It covers a wide range of legal issues, ranging from employment discrimination and wrongful termination to matters involving wages and workplace safety. Many employment law issues are governed by applicable federal and state employment law, but a number of issues are determined according to basic contract law.

Employee Rights:
All employees have basic rights arising from both state and federal laws. Some of these rights include: the right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, skin color, gender, pregnancy, religious beliefs, disability, age, and in some places, marital status or sexual orientation; the right to a workplace free of harassment; the right to be paid at least the minimum wage as provided by federal or state law; the right to overtime wages as provided by federal or state law; the right to a safe workplace and the right to take leave to care for a personal or family member's serious illness, or following the birth or adoption of a child.

Employment Discrimination:
Discrimination generally occurs when an employee is intentionally treated differently because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender, age, and in some states, sexual orientation. Employment discrimination claims may be prosecuted under various state and federal statutes. Even if the employee’s evidence is sufficient to show discrimination, an employer may be able to justify a particular job action by demonstrating that such treatment arose out of business necessity, or that a legitimate job qualification required consideration of factors that had an unintentional discriminatory effect. When the employer makes such a legitimate justification, the employee must show that discrimination, not the employer’s justification, was the true reason for the action.

Age Discrimination:
It is unlawful for an employer, employment agency or labor union to discriminate in employment on the basis of age. This includes refusing to hire an individual or firing an employee. It also includes an individual’s compensation, the terms, conditions, and privileges of his or her employment, and all employee benefits.

Disability Discrimination:
Both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protect individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination. An individual with a disability is defined as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of having such a physical or mental impairment, or is regarded as having such impairment. The term is broadly defined to include any physiological, mental or psychologically-based impairment. In January 2009, Congress passed significant changes to the ADA. The definition of what is a major life activity has been expanded. The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is now made without regard to effects of mitigating measures. These recent changes should permit many more persons with impairments who are discriminated against access to the courts even if their medical condition is not permanent.

Wrongful Termination:
Termination of employment cannot be classified as "Wrongful Termination" unless it is in violation of some fundamental public policy, as set forth in a state or federal statute, regulation or constitutional provision. Examples of Wrongful Termination include situations where:

• An employee is discharged for failure to comply with an order to perform an act that violates some law, ordinance or regulation, or
• An employee is discharged in retaliation for complaints about conduct by the employer that he or she believes to be unlawful, e.g., failure to pay overtime, or failure to comply with safety regulations.

Sexual Harassment:
Sexual harassment is any unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior. It involves a broad range of conduct, including such verbal harassment as derogatory comments, explicit sexual comments and descriptions of sexual exploits, leering or requesting sexual favors. The term also describes physical harassment, ranging from inappropriate touching to outright sexual assault. In order to be classified as illegal the conduct in question must be both unwelcome and offensive to the victim.

Sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination, prohibited in employment settings under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title IX of the 1972 Education Act makes sexual harassment in schools or other educational settings unlawful. The Federal Fair Housing Act also provides protection against sexual harassment, and most states have enacted legislation making it unlawful.

Overtime Compensation:
Under both State and Federal law employers are required to pay additional compensation to eligible employees who work more than forty hours during any seven-day period. For every hour over forty hours in any given workweek the employer must pay the eligible employee at least one and one-half times the employee's ordinary hourly rate.

Severance Agreements:
A severance agreement is a form of settlement agreement under which an aggrieved employee agrees to accept an agreed sum of money in exchange for, among other things, abandoning all claims against the employer.  Where it can be negotiated, a severance agreement saves money and aggravation for both sides. Severance agreements commonly include such provisions as "mutual non-disclosure of terms," an agreement that the employee will not compete against the employer, and that neither the employer nor the employee will make negative comments about the other.

Trade Secrets Agreements:
Employment contracts frequently contain provisions for the protection of the employer’s “trade secrets.”  These may range from customer data of one kind or another, to company designs, or even “secret recipes.” Typically, the Trade Secrets clause of an employment contract will provide for “liquidated” damages in the event of disclosure of the information. Liquidated damages are a set dollar figure agreed-upon in advance, to be paid in the event the contract clause is violated.

Non-competition Agreements:
Non-competition agreements are provisions contained within an employment contract which restrict the activities of an employee after leaving the service of the company. Courts treat non-competition agreements with suspicion—with an eye toward preventing unnecessary and unreasonable interference with a person’s livelihood after severance of the employer/employee relationship. Colorado has specific statute making non-competition agreements void and unenforceable, except in only narrow circumstances. C.R.S. Section 8-2-113(2).

The Courts will often decline to enforce “unreasonable” non-competition agreements. A non-competition clause in the agreement under which a used car lot employs an auto mechanic will likely be summarily rejected by the court as unreasonable. The agreement must be reasonable in duration. A non-competition agreement barring the sales manager of a used car lot from engaging in the used car business for the rest of his or her life, or for 50 years, would probably be denied enforcement, while one with a 2-year term might well be enforced.  Non-competition agreements must be reasonable in the area covered. If the agreement precludes the sales manager from engaging in the used car business anywhere in North America, it will almost certainly be denied enforcement as unreasonable.

Whistleblower Claims:
Whistleblower Claims involve employer retaliation, sometimes to the extent of Wrongful Termination, against an employee who reports the improper or unlawful conduct of another employee or of management itself to government authorities. In most instances, it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against a “whistleblower.”

Administrative Law:
Administrative Law is a system of justice outside the judicial system that is designed to bring resolution to conflicts arising within a detailed and technical structure of regulations. Administrative Law Courts have a reputation for resolving issues with greater speed and efficiency than the judicial system. Final Administrative Law decisions can be challenged in the Courts, but not until all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Final Administrative Law decisions can also be converted to Court Judgments and then enforced by any of the traditional remedies available for the enforcement of civil judgments.

Injunctions:
Injunctions are a type of Court Order that either requires or prohibits specified conduct or behavior. Injunctions are remedies frequently used in employment cases. They involve such situations as injunctions requiring striking public employees to return to work, or injunctions requiring someone to stop engaging in an unlawful employment practice.  Willful failure to comply with an injunction can lead to a citation for contempt of court, and can result in significant money sanctions or even time in jail for the purpose of coercing compliance.

Employment Policy Manuals & Employee Handbooks:
An extraordinarily high percentage of Employment Law conflicts arise because there simply is no established company policy on a particular issue or the existing policy is either unknown or poorly understood. Competent Employment Law counsel can help draft and put together a company policy manual that is both comprehensive and understandable, and an employee handbook that leaves no doubt as to what is expected from each employee, and what he or she can expect from the company.

Class Action Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
EEOC/Ornelas v. Milgard Manufacturing Company in the United States District Court for District of Colorado. Partner, Tom Arckey, co-counseled with the Denver Trial Attorney’s Office of the EEOC, Rita Kittle, Lead Trial Counsel involving a class action claim for failure to hire and claims of racial discrimination retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981. Our client, a human resource professional, spoke out against racial discrimination against persons of color at the company. She filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC filed a lawsuit and on behalf of our client, we filed a complaint in intervention as an Intervener seeking damages on behalf of Ms. Ornelas.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-20-04a.cfm

Result: After several years of litigation, including numerous depositions taken in Washington and Colorado, the parties entered in to a Consent Decree settlement of $3,370,000.00. Our client’s efforts also resulted in the EEOC establishing a monitoring program designed to increase employment at the Company of the number of African Americans and black person.

Wrongful Denial of Long Term Insurance Disability Insurance Benefits
Female Employee v. Insurance Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Our client was disabled employee whose Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits were terminated. The employee was unable to work due to multiple injuries. Initially she was approved by her employer-provided insurance plan to receive LTD benefits. Our client asserted that her benefits were arbitrarily terminated because the insurer determined that she was capable of working in a full-time sedentary capacity. Our firm filed a lawsuit under The Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, (“ERISA”) seeking reinstatement of her benefits. Ordinarily in an ERISA case, discovery is not permitted, but if granted by the Court the reviewing Court may examine the nature of the conflict of interest in having the plan administrator both determine and pay the claims. On behalf of our client, we obtained the right to proceed with depositions and written discovery.

Result: After we successfully pursued and were granted our request to conduct discovery into the conflict of interest, we were able to resolve the matter to the client’s satisfaction and obtain a significant lump sum settlement.

Employee Wrongfully Sued for Non-compete and Trade Secrets Violations
Engineering company v. Employee in the Denver District Court. In August 2010, our client was an employee who resigned from an engineering company. The employer had filed for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to prevent the employee from working in any capacity in the industry in which he was experienced, greatly restricting his ability to be employed in the worst economic environment since the Great Depression. ImaginIt based its case on an employment agreement the client was required to sign when he began employment. Covenants not to compete are void under Colorado law, except in very narrow exceptions, and the employer was trying to enforce the agreement more broadly than drafted or necessary to protect its commercial interest.

Result: The employee was given only a day’s notice of the hearing on the injunction and came to our firm that evening. The next day, Sara Hunt successfully defended the TRO and injunction being sought against our client. The result was that our client did not violate the non-compete agreement. As a result, the client was able to seek employment in his chosen field.

Two Trial Victories and an Appeal Victory in One Case
In a case prosecuted in both the Douglas County District Court and in the United States District Court for Colorado, our firm obtained a significant victory for our client. In August 2010, in a case pending since 2006, partner Tom Arckey and associate attorney Sara Hunt won a $130,000 state court verdict for a former president who had been sued by his former employer. Initially, the company filed the lawsuit against our client, the former president in Federal Court located in Denver. Our firm was successful in defeating the company’s claim of unlawful computer access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The federal trial judge dismissed the company’s lawsuit. It appealed the dismissal of its claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. All eleven judges of the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and denied the company’s appeal. The company then filed a lawsuit in the state court against our client alleging seven (7) violations of law against our client. Our client filed counterclaims against the company for failure to pay him stock and equity in the company as promised. A jury trial of five days resulted in over a six figure verdict for our client on his counterclaims.

Result: A jury verdict of $130,001.

Case of Sex Discrimination and Unequal Pay
Female Employee v. Insurance Company United States District Court for District of Colorado. On behalf of our client we filed claims of gender discrimination, retaliation and violation of Equal Pay Act against her former employer. Our female client had voiced complaints about unequal pay for females and male preferential treatment in the workplace.

Result: After numerous depositions taken in three separate states, a confidential settlement was reached. Our client received a six figure settlement with a value of three times her salary.

Case of State of Colorado Employee Wrongful Termination
State Employee v. State Department. Our client was employed by the state of Colorado. He was terminated from his job for allegedly violating work rules. Our client alleged that his supervisor violated work rules and was disciplined less harshly and that our client should not have been terminated. He filed his own appeal contesting his termination and then came to us to litigate his case before an Administrative Judge of the Colorado State Personnel Board.

Result: After four (4) days of trial before the Administrative Judge, our client was vindicated and the state of Colorado was ordered to reinstate him with full back pay, benefits and statutory interest. The parties later entered into a confidential settlement resolving issues on appeal. Our client received all of his back pay and benefits and a substantial amount of his attorneys’ fees.

Case of Federal Employee v. United States of America
Our client was a federal employee working at the Denver Federal Center. She was terminated from her position. She then pursued claims of discrimination based on sex, sexual harassment, disability, and reprisal. We represented her throughout the informal and formal stages of federal employee EEOC discrimination processes. After the trial commenced before an Administrative Judge of the Equal Opportunity Commission, the parties reached an agreement.

Result: A confidential settlement into six figures provided our client with the equivalent of 3 years of income, expungement of her records in her official personnel file and payment of all of her attorneys’ fees.

Case of Violations under the FMLA and ADA
Female Nurse v. Hospital, United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On behalf of our client, we filed a lawsuit for claims of violation of Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation in violation of FMLA, discrimination under Americans With Disabilities Act and violations of unlawful disclosure of confidential information and prohibited medical inquiries under ADA, retaliation under ADA, retaliation under Title VII, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, intentional interference with contract, and abuse of process.

Result: A confidential settlement awarding our client a cash value of over two years’ salary and payment of all of her attorneys’ fees.