Jump to Navigation

Employment Discrimination

Race, Sex, Religious, Disability and Age Discrimination Lawyer

Employment laws protect employees from discrimination in the work place. You may feel discrimination and wonder what your options are and whether or not you have a right to take legal action. The lawyers at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, are experienced employment law attorneys focused on protecting the rights and interests of clients who suffer from employment discrimination. We know that discrimination can be subtle, discreet or egregious. When appropriate we will perform an investigation and aggressively pursue your rights under state and federal law.

Sex discrimination, age discrimination, race discrimination, and religious discrimination are illegal. Call (302) 529-0121 today or contact us by e-mail to protect your rights and pursue your claim against an employer.

Discrimination Can Come in Many Forms

Discrimination in the workplace is not limited to a certain group of employees, it can affect anyone. It may take the form of a demotion, failure to promote, inappropriate jokes and comments, or simply disparate treatment between employees. When you feel that you have suffered discrimination, it is important to know your rights so that you can make informed decisions about whether or not to seek legal action. Whether you are interested in keeping your job or recovering a settlement, the attorneys at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, can explain your legal options and help you fight for your rights.

Identifying Discrimination and Taking Action in Your Case

Discrimination could involve such subtle, pretextual actions as deliberately changing your job duties or job description so that you are forced to quit. It could involve a written evaluation that causes you to lose an opportunity or promotion. You could have been simply passed over for a promotion because of an illness, disability, or other classification. We will take the time to understand the unique facts of your case, guide you in collecting documentation, and handle your case while you are still an employee. We will explore your options with you and help you determine the best course of action to protect your career, long-term interests, and your rights.

We are experienced in employment discrimination cases involving:

  • Race discrimination
  • Age discrimination
  • Sex discrimination
  • Religion discrimination
  • Sexual orientation
  • Pregnancy
  • Illness
  • Disability
  • Wrongful termination
  • Sexual harassment

Contact an Experienced Employment Law Attorney Today

Call (302) 529-0121 or contact our office by e-mail to schedule an initial consultation to discuss your case involving discrimination in the workplace. We are conveniently located safely in the Wilmington suburbs at Lancaster Pike (Rte. 48) and Centre Road (Rte. 141).

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