Jump to Navigation

Wilmington ADA Discrimination Attorneys

The ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) is a federal law passed to protect the rights of American workers who have disabilities or handicaps. Under the act, employers are prohibited from discriminating based on an actual or perceived disability, and employers must provide reasonable accommodations employees need to perform their job duties.

ADA Lawyers Serving Delaware

As a worker with a disability or handicap, you have rights under the ADA. Our firm, Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, is here to protect those rights. We have more than 19 years of employment law experience and have represented countless clients throughout Wilmington and across Delaware. If you believe you are the victim of workplace disability discrimination, we can guide you through the process of obtaining legal relief.

Our Wilmington ADA discrimination lawyers also represent clients in claims filed with various administrative agencies such as:

  • Delaware Department of Labor
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The process involved for administrative agency actions can be complex. You deserve to understand the process as well as your specific rights and options. Whether we pursue an administrative action or file a lawsuit on your behalf for discrimination, we are dedicated to obtaining a fair and just result for victims of disability discrimination. You can trust we are effective and have obtained many successful results throughout the years.

Do not wait until the last minute to assert your rights. It is important to seek assistance as soon as possible.

Contact Us For Help With Claims Under The Americans With Disabilities Act

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, our team is here to support you. Contact us at 302-529-0121 to arrange an in-person meeting. Our Wilmington office is conveniently located in the suburbs.

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy