What You Just Heard From Your Former Employer Was Not the Whole Story
You spent years — decades, maybe — building a career. You served your country. You did the work. And then someone decided you were too old, said so out loud, and set out to make you quit. When you finally raised your voice, the response came back through a spokesperson: baseless lies.
That word — baseless — is what the other side says when they cannot yet see the documents you have already preserved. It is what powerful offices say to a former employee they expect to walk away quietly. It is almost never the last word.
If you are an older worker who believes you were pushed out of a congressional office — or any federal workplace — because of your age, the law has a name for what happened to you. It is called age discrimination, and it has been illegal since 1967 under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The question is not whether you were insulted. The question is whether the people who insulted you can be made to answer for it in a courtroom — and the answer, in most cases, is yes. What you need to understand is how the process works, how much time you have, and what the case is actually worth.
This page is written for you. It explains the law, the deadlines, the evidence, and the defense playbook you are already living through. It also tells you who we are and how to reach us. The consultation costs you nothing. We advance all costs. We do not get paid unless we recover for you.
The Allegations Out of Rep. Troy Nehls’ Office: What the Texas Tribune Reported
In June 2025, the Texas Tribune published a detailed account of an age discrimination complaint filed with the House Ethics Committee by Kevin Countie, a retired Army colonel and twenty-year Drug Enforcement Administration senior intelligence analyst who had served as Deputy Chief of Staff in Rep. Troy Nehls’ office from 2021 to 2023. Countie was 63 when he was hired.
Countie’s complaint, as described to the Tribune, alleges that he was subjected to repeated derogatory remarks about his age — including being introduced by Nehls as the old colonel, a nickname that caught on with staff and visitors. He alleges that his chief of staff, Robert Schroeder, regularly called him old timer in front of other employees, and that younger staffers addressed him as old man — conduct Schroeder observed but did not correct. Countie further alleges that his duties were progressively reassigned to younger employees, that he was told by Nehls that bringing you and some of the older personnel in had been a mistake, and that when he raised his concerns directly to the congressman, nothing changed.
Countie described the experience in his complaint as leaving me feeling depressed, humiliated, and insulted — feelings I had never experienced during my years at the Drug Enforcement Administration and in association with the Army. He reported that he was interviewed by the House Ethics Committee in June 2025, and that the congressional Office of Employee Advocacy is representing him — a signal that the institutional process has moved past intake and into active review.
Nehls’ office, through spokesperson Emily Matthews, responded to the Tribune’s detailed questions by calling the allegations baseless lies and saying we hope he gets the help he needs. The statement offered no specific denial of any particular act, no explanation for the reassignment of duties, and no acknowledgment of the corroborating March 2022 letter described below.
The Tribune also reported that Countie is not the only former Nehls employee to allege this kind of treatment. Another former employee wrote a letter in March 2022 describing Schroeder’s strategy of overwhelming older workers to encourage or compel the employee to quit or retire. Countie forwarded that letter to Nehls in May 2022. And Countie alleges that Schroeder made similar ageist remarks toward Tom Goodfellow, a special adviser who was also in his sixties.
We are not here to try the Countie case in a news article. We are here to tell you that the legal framework Countie is invoking is real, that the documentary evidence he describes is exactly the kind of evidence that wins these cases, and that the procedural pathway he is walking is the same one available to any older federal employee who has been pushed out because of age.
The “Overwhelm Them to Retire” Memo: Why One Document Changes Everything
In age discrimination cases, the single most powerful piece of evidence is contemporaneous documentation of the employer’s discriminatory intent. Juries understand documents. They understand memos. They do not need to guess what someone was thinking when the thinking is written down in plain language.
The March 2022 letter obtained by the Tribune, written by a former Nehls employee, describes a strategy in which older workers are to be overwhelmed — assigned unmanageable workloads, given impossible deadlines, buried in tasks — in order to encourage or compel the employee to quit or retire. Countie forwarded that letter to Nehls in May 2022, meaning the congressman had actual notice of the alleged strategy more than a year before Countie’s departure.
In legal terms, this is what we call direct evidence of discriminatory intent. It is rare. Most age discrimination cases turn on circumstantial evidence — a string of remarks, a pattern of reassignments, a series of personnel decisions that, taken together, suggest age was a motivating factor. Juries can draw that inference, but they do not have to. The defense can always argue that the remarks were jokes, that the reassignments were performance-based, that the employee simply did not fit.
A written articulation of a strategy to push out older workers is harder to explain away. It is not a remark that can be dismissed as locker-room banter. It is a plan, on paper, that matches what actually happened to the complainant. And when that document was forwarded to the principal — the congressman himself — and the conduct continued, the failure to act becomes evidence of adoption, ratification, or deliberate indifference. Any of those satisfies an element of the claim.
We do not need to prove that Nehls personally wrote the memo. We need to prove that he knew about it, that the strategy it described was carried out, and that he did not stop it. The May 2022 email from Countie to Nehls, attaching the letter, is the bridge. The continued reassignment of duties to younger staff is the ratification. The baseless lies response, two years later, is the closing argument the defense will have to explain to a jury.
The Congressional Accountability Act: The Law Congress Wrote to Cover Itself
For most of American history, congressional employees had no federal employment-law protections at all. Members of Congress were exempt from many of the workplace laws they passed for the rest of the country. That changed in 1995, when Congress enacted the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), codified at 2 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1438. The CAA applies twelve federal employment statutes — including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act — to approximately 30,000 congressional employees and their employing offices.
The employing office, under 2 U.S.C. § 1301(9), is the Member of Congress whose staff you worked for. For Kevin Countie, that is Rep. Troy Nehls. The Member is jointly and severally liable for the discriminatory acts of supervisory employees acting within the scope of employment, including hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims.
The CAA is the exclusive remedy for most claims by congressional employees. State law claims — including claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act — are generally preempted. That means if you worked for a House or Senate office and you believe you were discriminated against because of your age, your case lives in the federal system, not the state system. You do not file with the Texas Workforce Commission. You do not file under Texas law. You go through the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.
That distinction matters because the forum, the procedures, the remedies, and the deadlines are all different from what most employment attorneys — and most employees — are used to. The people who handle these cases are a small specialty. We handle them.
Step-by-Step: How an ADEA Case Against a House Office Actually Proceeds
The procedural pathway under the CAA is rigid. Miss a deadline and the claim can be barred, regardless of how strong the evidence is. Here is the sequence.
Step 1: Request OCWR Counseling Within 180 Days
An aggrieved employee must first request counseling from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Under 2 U.S.C. § 1402, that request must be made within 180 days of the alleged violation. This is not a suggestion. It is a mandatory claim-processing rule. The 180-day clock starts on the date of the adverse action — the reassignment, the termination, the constructive discharge — not the date you decided to do something about it.
For a constructive discharge — where you were forced to resign because conditions became intolerable — the clock typically starts on the date you actually left. But the analysis can be more complicated when the harassment is ongoing. The safest assumption is that the clock has been running since the last clearly adverse act, and the time to request counseling is now.
Step 2: Mediation Through OCWR
After counseling, the OCWR provides mediation. A neutral mediator works with the employee and the employing office to see if the dispute can be resolved. Mediation is confidential. What is said in mediation generally cannot be used against either party later. The goal at this stage is often to surface the strength of the evidence — particularly the existence of documents like the overwhelm letter — and to pressure the employing office into a realistic settlement number.
Mediation can take weeks or months. During that time, the employing office is on notice, the record is building, and the defense has to decide whether to settle or fight. The documentary evidence often does its own work in this phase. We have seen offices that dismissed a complaint as baseless in public move quickly to a confidential resolution once mediation begins and the documents start moving.
Step 3: Federal Court Lawsuit Within 90 Days After Mediation Ends
If mediation does not produce a resolution, the employee may file a civil action in federal district court. Under the CAA, the lawsuit must be filed within 90 days after the end of mediation. This is a second hard deadline. Miss it, and the claim is gone.
Venue is strategic. A plaintiff may file in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where CAA cases are procedurally conventional. But a plaintiff may also file in the federal district court where the plaintiff resides or where the employing office is located. For a Texas-based plaintiff like Kevin Countie, that means the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the Southern District of Texas, or the Western District of Texas — all of which have experience with federal employment cases and local juries that understand workplace discrimination. We are Houston-based and admitted to the Southern District of Texas, which gives us a natural home-court advantage for Texas-resident plaintiffs in CAA cases.
Theories of Liability: What the Law Recognizes
Age discrimination claims under the ADEA can proceed on several legal theories, and the strongest cases combine more than one. Here are the doctrines that apply.
Disparate Treatment
The classic ADEA claim. The employee must show that, but for his age, he would not have suffered the adverse employment action. The framework is the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis: (1) the employee is 40 or older, (2) is qualified for the position, (3) suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination. Once those elements are met, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. Then the employee gets a final chance to show that reason is pretext.
For Countie, the prima facie case is straightforward: he was 63, he was qualified (retired Army colonel, twenty-year DEA senior intelligence analyst, offered the chief of staff position), he suffered adverse action (reassignment of duties and constructive discharge), and the circumstances — the old colonel moniker, the overwhelm strategy, the pattern across three older employees — give rise to a clear inference of age discrimination. The defense will argue performance. The evidence will argue pattern.
Hostile Work Environment
ADEA claims based on a hostile work environment are recognized but less common than their Title VII counterparts. The standard requires age-based harassment that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment. Isolated remarks, unless extreme, usually do not meet the bar. A sustained pattern of age-based remarks by a supervisor, combined with the institutional strategy described in the March 2022 letter, can.
The corroborating letter is the difference-maker. It is not just Countie’s word against the office’s word. It is a contemporaneous document from a different former employee describing the same supervisor’s conduct toward another older worker. That is the kind of evidence that converts a he-said-she-said dispute into a pattern.
Constructive Discharge
An employee who resigns can still bring an ADEA claim if the working conditions became so intolerable that a reasonable person in the protected class would feel compelled to resign. The standard is objective: would a reasonable person in Countie’s circumstances feel they had no choice but to leave? The deliberate make them quit strategy documented in the March 2022 letter is direct evidence of intent to constructively discharge, and it elevates the damages because it shows the employer engineered the end of the employment relationship rather than merely tolerating a poor fit.
Retaliation
Under 29 U.S.C. § 623(d), it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who opposes discriminatory practices. Countie raised concerns about Schroeder’s conduct directly to Nehls. The reassignment of duties and the eventual departure followed. The temporal proximity and the failure to remediate support a retaliation claim, which is independently actionable and unlocks separate damages, including its own attorneys’ fees.
Pattern-or-Practice / Multi-Victim Discrimination
Three identified older employees subjected to the same supervisor’s conduct — Countie, Goodfellow, and the March 2022 letter writer — strengthens the case in a way that single-plaintiff claims cannot replicate. It establishes that this was not an isolated incident or a personality conflict. It was a method. That is the kind of evidence that supports a robust settlement posture before trial and a powerful closing argument if the case goes the distance.
Damages: What You Can Actually Recover
ADEA damages against a governmental employer are different from damages in a private-sector discrimination case. There is no compensatory damages for pain and suffering. There is no punitive damages. The recovery is limited to economic relief and attorneys’ fees, but the economic relief — particularly when willfulness is proven — is substantial.
Back Pay
Back pay is the wages and benefits you would have earned from the date of the adverse action through the date of trial. For a senior House staffer like a Deputy Chief of Staff, the GS-grade-equivalent salary range is typically $120,000 to $170,000 per year, plus lost benefits, retirement contributions, and Thrift Savings Plan match. Two to three years of back pay, depending on when the case reaches trial, places the back-pay component alone in the $240,000 to $510,000 range.
Liquidated Damages for Willful Violations
Under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), if the violation is willful — meaning the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for the ADEA’s requirements — the court must award liquidated damages equal to back pay. In other words, the back-pay number doubles. The willfulness standard is supported here by the contemporaneous overwhelm memo, the documented failure to act after notice, and the mandatory training all House offices receive on workplace rights. An employer that has been trained on the ADEA and then oversees a strategy to push out older workers has a very hard time arguing it did not know the conduct was illegal.
Front Pay
Front pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement when reinstatement is not feasible. Given Countie’s age (mid-sixties) and the limited remaining career runway, front pay is more likely than reinstatement. Front-pay awards in ADEA cases commonly run two to five years, placing the front-pay component in the $240,000 to $850,000 range.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
A prevailing plaintiff in an ADEA case is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. This is not discretionary. It is mandatory under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). Fee-shifting is what makes these cases economically viable for plaintiffs’ firms and what gives defendants a strong financial incentive to settle rather than litigate.
The Honest Range
Putting the components together, the realistic case-value range, based on the facts as currently understood, is:
- Low end ($400,000 to $700,000): back pay only, no willful finding, weak front-pay award, modest fee recovery.
- Mid-range ($1.2 million to $2.5 million): willful violation doubling back pay over three to five years, plus front pay and full fee recovery.
- High end ($3.5 million to $6 million): willful violation, strong front-pay award, full fee recovery, and the pattern-or-practice record supporting a robust settlement posture. The overwhelm memo is the kind of smoking-gun document that makes defendants pay to avoid public trial.
These are ranges, not guarantees. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The actual value of any ADEA case turns on the evidence, the venue, the judge, and the willingness of the defense to risk a public trial.
Evidence Preservation: The Clocks That Are Running
Age discrimination cases are won or lost on documents. The overwhelm memo is the kind of evidence that turns a marginal case into a strong one. The absence of that memo, had it been lost, would have turned a strong case into a marginal one. The lesson is simple: preserve everything, immediately, before it can be deleted, archived, or forgotten.
The Critical Documents
The evidence that wins these cases falls into several categories. First, the March 2022 letter from the second former employee, already in the Tribune’s possession, describing Schroeder’s overwhelm them to retire strategy. This document should be forensically preserved with a certified copy and full chain of custody. Second, Countie’s May 2022 email forwarding that letter to Nehls, which establishes notice to the principal and the failure-to-remediate element. Third, the House Ethics Committee interview notes, scheduling emails, and follow-up correspondence from June 2025, which corroborate the account and show the Committee found the complaint credible enough to interview the complainant. Fourth, the OCWR counseling request, mediation records, and Office of Employee Advocacy correspondence, which establish exhaustion of administrative remedies. Fifth, personnel files, performance reviews, duty assignment logs, and organizational charts for the Nehls office from 2021 to 2023, which prove qualification, reassignment to younger staff, and the age composition of the office. Sixth, all communications between Schroeder and other older employees, including Goodfellow and the March 2022 letter writer. Seventh, Countie’s contemporaneous notes, calendar entries, mental-health treatment records (collected with privilege protections), and corroborating witness statements.
The Deadlines
Several clocks are running. The 180-day OCWR counseling request is a mandatory claim-processing rule. The 90-day window to file in federal court after mediation ends is a second hard deadline. House records are subject to archival retention schedules — the longer you wait to demand preservation, the greater the risk that personnel files, email archives, and duty logs are purged. Witness memory fades — Goodfellow and the March 2022 letter writer should be interviewed and their statements stabilized now, while the events are still fresh and the witnesses are available.
The preservation letter goes out the day you call. We identify the records, we identify the custodians, we identify the systems, and we put the employing office on written notice that spoliation will have consequences. In New Mexico, intentional spoliation of evidence is its own tort under Coleman v. Eddy Potash. The federal system has analogous sanctions, and the threat of those sanctions is often enough to lock the documents down.
The Employer’s Playbook: What They Will Do and How to Counter It
Every defendant in an age discrimination case runs the same playbook. The plays are predictable. The counters are well-known. Knowing what is coming is half the battle.
Play 1: The Public Dismissal
The first play is the public statement calling the allegations baseless lies. We have already seen it in this case. The purpose is to shape the narrative before discovery, to discourage other potential witnesses from coming forward, and to create a record that the employer can point to later. The counter is simple: the statement is not evidence. The documents are evidence. And the documents — the overwhelm memo, the reassignment logs, the personnel files — are what the case will be decided on. A spokesperson’s denial does not delete a memo.
Play 2: The Performance Excuse
The second play is the performance-based defense. He wasn’t performing. He didn’t fit the team. We had legitimate business reasons for the reassignment. This is the defense’s fallback in every ADEA case, and it is the defense that will be deployed here. The counter is the record: a retired Army colonel, a twenty-year DEA senior intelligence analyst, a man who was originally offered the chief of staff position. Performance is not a credible explanation for pushing out someone with that resume. And when the overwhelm memo is read alongside the performance claim, the pretext becomes visible.
Play 3: Isolating the Complainant
The third play is framing the case as an individual dispute. This was about this one employee and this one supervisor. It wasn’t a pattern. The counter is the pattern itself: three older employees, the same supervisor, the same strategy, the same result. The defense cannot argue individual performance when the evidence shows a method.
Play 4: Delaying the Process
The fourth play is delay. Stretch the OCWR counseling period. Drag out mediation. Run out the 90-day window if possible. Delay is expensive for the plaintiff and expensive for the plaintiff’s counsel, and it is designed to pressure a low settlement. The counter is aggressive calendaring, prompt filing at every stage, and a willingness to take the case to trial if the defense will not pay a fair number.
Play 5: The Confidential Settlement with a Nondisclosure Agreement
The fifth play is the lowball offer with a confidentiality clause and a release of all claims. The employing office offers a small check — often less than the back-pay number — in exchange for silence. For a public figure like a sitting congressman, the value of silence is enormous, which means the settlement number can be driven up if the plaintiff is willing to go to trial. The counter is to know the case value before you walk into mediation, to understand that the NDA has a price, and to be prepared to say no.
Play 6: Attacking the Plaintiff’s Credibility
The sixth play is the credibility attack. He was depressed. He had performance issues. He can’t be trusted. The counter is the opposite record: military service, DEA service, a career of institutional credibility. And the counter is also the corroborating witnesses — the second former employee who wrote the March 2022 letter, Tom Goodfellow, and any other staffer who saw what happened.
Play 7: The “Business Judgment” Defense
The seventh play is the assertion that the employing office had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for every personnel decision. This is the pretext defense dressed up in formal language. The counter is discovery: if the reasons are legitimate, they will be documented. If they are not, the absence of documentation is itself evidence of pretext. The duty assignment logs, the performance reviews, the emails — all of it goes under the microscope.
The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
That statute is forty-eight words. It is the law that the baseless lies statement has to answer to.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline for filing an age discrimination claim against a congressional office?
You must request counseling from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights within 180 days of the alleged violation under 2 U.S.C. § 1402. If mediation does not resolve the dispute, you must file a civil action in federal district court within 90 days after the end of mediation. Both deadlines are mandatory. Missing either one can bar the claim regardless of how strong the evidence is.
Does the ADEA apply to congressional employees?
Yes. The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 applies twelve federal employment statutes, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, to approximately 30,000 congressional employees. The CAA is generally the exclusive remedy for claims by congressional employees, meaning state-law claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act are typically preempted.
What damages can I recover in an ADEA case against a federal office?
Against a governmental employer, you can recover back pay, front pay (in lieu of reinstatement), liquidated damages equal to back pay if the violation is willful, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Compensatory damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages are not available against a governmental employer, though they may theoretically be available against an individual supervisor under limited circumstances.
What is a “willful” violation and why does it matter?
A willful violation is one where the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for the requirements of the ADEA. Under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), a willful finding doubles the liquidated damages — meaning the back-pay award is effectively doubled. Willfulness is supported when the employer has been trained on the law, had notice of the discriminatory conduct, and failed to act.
What is constructive discharge?
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the protected class feels compelled to resign. You can still bring an ADEA claim even though you technically resigned, because the law treats a constructive discharge as an involuntary termination. A documented strategy to push out older workers — like the overwhelm them to retire approach described in this case — is direct evidence of intent to constructively discharge.
Can I sue my congressman personally?
The employing office — meaning the Member of Congress — is a proper defendant under the CAA for monetary relief, and is jointly and severally liable for the discriminatory acts of supervisory employees acting within the scope of employment. Individual supervisors may also be subject to personal liability under certain circumstances, though sovereign immunity and qualified immunity can present significant hurdles.
How long does an ADEA case take?
The OCWR counseling and mediation phase typically takes several months. If the case proceeds to federal court, litigation from filing through trial commonly takes eighteen months to three years. Most ADEA cases settle before trial, but the timeline depends on the complexity of the discovery, the court’s calendar, and the defense’s willingness to negotiate.
What if I was also treated badly for reasons other than age?
The CAA incorporates multiple employment statutes, including Title VII (race, sex, religion, national origin), the ADA (disability), the FMLA (family and medical leave), and the FLSA (wage and hour). If you have claims under more than one statute, they can often be brought together. We will evaluate every potential claim during the initial consultation.
What if I already resigned?
Resignation does not bar an age discrimination claim if the resignation was a constructive discharge — meaning the working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to leave. The 180-day OCWR clock typically starts on the date of the resignation, so the deadline may still be open. Call us immediately to evaluate the timeline.
What if I am still employed but being pushed out?
The 180-day clock starts on the date of each adverse action, not on the date of termination. If duties are being reassigned, if you are being isolated, if you are being set up to fail, each of those acts may trigger its own 180-day window. Do not wait to be fired. The time to request OCWR counseling is when the pattern begins, not when it ends.
How much does it cost to hire a lawyer for an ADEA case against a congressional office?
We handle ADEA cases on a contingency basis. You pay nothing upfront. We advance all costs of litigation. Our fee is a percentage of the recovery, and if we do not recover for you, you owe us nothing. The ADEA’s mandatory fee-shifting provision means that a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees from the defendant, which is one of the reasons these cases are economically viable for plaintiffs’ firms.
What should I do right now if I think I have a claim?
Three things. First, do not sign anything, do not respond to any document from the employing office or its counsel, and do not give a recorded statement to anyone. Second, preserve every document you have — emails, texts, letters, notes, calendar entries, performance reviews. Forward them to a personal email account or save them to a personal device so they are beyond the employing office’s control. Third, call us. The consultation is free, it is confidential, and the 180-day clock does not wait for you to finish thinking about it. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 or reach us through our contact page.
How the Manginello Law Firm Can Help
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We built this firm on a simple idea: people in a legal emergency deserve someone who picks up the phone. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has spent more than twenty-seven years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is a former journalist who became a trial lawyer, a starting point guard on a New England prep school championship basketball team, and a combat-tested advocate who has stood in front of juries against some of the largest corporate defendants in the country. Ralph has recovered more than $50 million for Texas families since 1998.
Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña, is a former insurance defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm — in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows the defense playbook because he ran it. Now he runs it in reverse, for the people it was designed to defeat. Lupe is fully bilingual and serves our clients in Spanish as fluently as in English.
We handle age discrimination claims against congressional offices under the Congressional Accountability Act because the people who need that help deserve a firm that has been in federal court, that has tried cases against institutional defendants, and that understands how the defense will try to defeat your claim before you finish making it. We know the OCWR process. We know the 180-day deadline. We know the 90-day window. We know what the overwhelm memo means to a jury, and we know how to put a case together that makes a defendant pay to avoid trial.
The consultation is free. We advance all costs. There is no fee unless we win. We serve clients in English and in Spanish — Hablamos Español.
If you are an older worker who believes you were pushed out of a congressional office — or any federal workplace — because of your age, the call you make today may be the most important call of your case. The 180-day clock is real. The evidence is waiting to be preserved. The defense is already building its playbook. Do not let them build it without you.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Or visit our contact page to reach us online. We are here.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page provides general legal information about age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Congressional Accountability Act. It is not legal advice for your specific situation. To get legal advice, contact a licensed attorney.