Dalrymple Law LLC

Dalrymple Law LLC Labor/Employment/Estate Planning Attorney As a practicing attorney, I manage a complex and busy practice.

I am a trusted advisor to clients and a contributing member of the legal community. I routinely evaluate complex and sensitive issues and provide helpful solutions for my clients. As a Judicial Clerk at the Indiana Supreme Court, I evaluated high-level legal issues and drafted legal opinions. I am widely recognized as a policy-minded thinker who is pragmatic but creative. In my practice, I investi

gate and litigate discrimination claims and develop employment policies for numerous clients. I prepare responsive and comprehensive estate plans to assist individuals in planning for their own future and the future of their loved ones. I also aggressively represent individuals who have employment discrimination claims, harassment claims, wage claims, or accommodation claims against their employers. I base my practice on three principles:


provide exceptional legal advice to my clients;


foster a relationship of trust and cooperation with my clients;


be available to my clients to serve their needs at their convenience.

11/14/2025

In a recent legal action by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a female call-center employee alleged that her termination, ostensibly for using profanity in a customer interaction, was in fact a pretext for discriminatory treatment on the basis of her race (Black) and s*x (female). She further claimed that after lodging an internal complaint, she faced unlawful retaliation.

The employer agreed to pay $85,000 to resolve the matter and entered into a consent decree of two years, in which it committed to changes in its evaluation and termination practices. The decree requires the employer to adopt a documented anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policy, to maintain written records of all harassment or discrimination complaints, and to provide mandatory training for human-resources personnel.

The alleged conduct implicates protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits adverse employment decisions based on race or s*x, and forbids retaliation against employees who oppose or report discriminatory practices. In essence, the case underscores both direct discrimination (race and s*x) and retaliatory discharge following a protected complaint.

If you believe you were disciplined, demoted or terminated under circumstances that may mask discrimination or retaliation, you may have a viable claim. To explore your rights and options, please contact Dalrymple Law LLC for a confidential consultation.

Call now to connect with business.

11/12/2025

In a notable enforcement action, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) secured a $100,000 settlement in a federal suit alleging that a dance-hall employer created a flagrantly hostile work environment and retaliated against employees who spoke out.

The employer allegedly allowed the owner to touch female employees without consent, pursue s*xual relationships with multiple female staff, pressure women to host him overnight at their homes, and even engage in s*xual activity with an intoxicated employee at the workplace.  Female applicants were reportedly evaluated on their appearance with comments such as some were “too ugly” or “not f***able.” Male employees were subjected to unwelcome inquiries about their s*x lives and derogatory remarks about female colleagues.  After employees complained or filed with the EEOC, the employer allegedly retaliated—terminating or threatening those who objected, and filing a defamation action against ex-employees to silence them.

The consent decree covers five years, includes monetary relief of $100,000 to aggrieved individuals, and mandates training for managers and employees, a letter of apology from the owner to each victim, and a human-resources review of EEO policies conducted by a certified professional.  The EEOC indicated it would hold owners personally liable since the record showed misuse of corporate funds to support the owners’ personal expenses, making the “corporate veil” theory applicable.

The case involved violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits s*x-based harassment and retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination.  The employer’s retaliatory defamation case against former employees who cooperated with the EEOC was deemed an unlawful act of retaliation and an attempt to obstruct the Agency’s enforcement.

If you believe you have experienced s*xual harassment or retaliation in your workplace, contact Dalrymple Law LLC for a confidential discussion of your rights and potential claims.

Call now to connect with business.

11/06/2025

In a recent enforcement action by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an employer was found to have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it terminated an employee with a temporarily impaired arm rather than engaging in a proper accommodation process. The case involved an employee who suffered severe injury to his left arm and was cleared by his doctor to return to work using his right arm only. The employer insisted on a “100 % restriction-free” policy, refused his return, and discharged him.

The employer agreed to a three-year consent decree: it will pay $95,000 in monetary relief, eliminate its “100 % restriction-free” policy, provide annual ADA training to managers and HR staff, and submit annual reports to the EEOC on accommodations and return-to-work protocols.

The key take-aways for employees and employers alike:
An employer may not rely on categorical return-to-work policies that demand an employee be entirely free of restrictions. Such inflexible rules may violate the ADA. 
Employers must engage in the “interactive process” — a dialogue with the employee about possible accommodations that enable performance of essential job functions, unless doing so causes an undue hardship. 
Employees with disabilities or physical restrictions should document doctor-recommendations and clearly request reasonable accommodations, and employers should respond promptly, fairly and individually.

If you believe your employer has refused to accommodate your disability, terminated you for reasons tied to your restrictions, or engaged in discriminatory policies, you may have a viable legal claim. Contact Dalrymple Law LLC to discuss your rights and potential remedies.

Call now to connect with business.

10/01/2025

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has quietly announced a profound change: it will no longer rely on disparate impact analysis when investigating workplace discrimination. For decades, this tool allowed the agency to look beyond overt bias and instead examine neutral policies—such as hiring and reading tests, English proficiency test, or scheduling practices—that disproportionately harmed women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, or other protected groups. Without it, employees will face a steeper climb in proving systemic inequities. Proponents of the rollback argue that it reduces regulatory burdens and curtails government “overreach.” Yet critics warn that discrimination in the modern workplace is often subtle, embedded in practices that appear impartial but in reality perpetuate exclusion. To require proof of intent alone is to ignore how structural barriers operate. The law has long recognized that equality is not only about words but about outcomes. This retreat risks hollowing out protections Congress designed in Title VII. Workers should know that while the EEOC narrows its focus, state and local laws may still provide avenues for redress. And vigilant advocacy remains essential. True fairness demands that we scrutinize not just the motives behind employment decisions but their actual effects. Otherwise, neutrality becomes a convenient disguise for inequality.

Call now to connect with business.

08/28/2025

On May 21, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a result in a disability discrimination matter: a former host received $100,000 after her employer refused a simple, reasonable accommodation. The host had a medically documented knee condition that limited her ability to stand or walk beyond thirty minutes. She requested only a stool while performing clerical tasks at the host stand, tasks that did not compromise her ability to fulfill core duties such as escorting guests. The employer denied the accommodation and terminated her employment.

This conduct contravenes the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which mandates reasonable accommodations when they do not impose undue hardship. The lawsuit, filed by the EEOC in the Southern District of New York, was resolved through a consent decree requiring not just monetary relief, but also systemic reforms. The employer must now update its handbook to explicitly list provision of a stool as a valid accommodation, train staff on accommodation obligations, and regularly report on disability discrimination complaints and accommodation requests. Notably, the decree also prohibits denial of accommodations based on aesthetics or guest preferences.

This settlement marks the third recent instance in which the EEOC has enforced ADA compliance in the hotel industry regarding guest‑facing roles, sending a clear message that superficial concerns must yield to legal obligations.

If you or someone you know has been denied a basic accommodation, feel aggrieved, or needs guidance navigating ADA protections, please contact Dalrymple Law LLC to discuss how to protect your rights and pursue just remedies.

Call now to connect with business.

08/21/2025

An employee, a dedicated traveling sales agent contending with fibromyalgia, sought a reassignment to an in‑office role as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Despite her condition limiting her ability to drive long distances, her request was delayed for nearly three years before any action was taken, a clear breach of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s mandate for timely, effective accommodations, particularly reassignment to a vacant position.

Following the EEOC’s intervention and litigation in federal court in Puerto Rico, a three‑year consent decree was entered. The settlement included $100,000 in compensation for the employee, plus meaningful injunctive relief: revision of the employer’s accommodation policy and specialized training for HR and recruitment personnel regarding ADA obligations.

The violations here are stark. Delay, even unintentional, in providing reasonable accommodations frustrates the purposes of the ADA. Reassignment is explicitly recognized by the statute as a viable option, not a last resort . Employers must not only understand these duties but act with alacrity when accommodation requests arise.

This case underscores the profound responsibility employers have; failure to comply exposes them to liability and substantial legal and reputational cost. If you or someone you know faces indifferent or delayed responses to accommodation requests, your rights must be protected.

Contact Dalrymple Law LLC to discuss how we can assist in securing timely, lawful accommodations.

Call now to connect with business.

06/18/2025

A recent case underscores a troubling reality: discrimination disguised as concern. A qualified woman and experienced in the fitness-industry, was denied a front desk position after requesting to delay her second‑round interview due to endometriosis and painful menstrual cramps. The hiring manager unambiguously stated the reason: “concern … if your absence may occur due to your monthly cycle.” Such reasoning is unlawful.

The EEOC filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting that the employer penalized the applicant both for her disability and her s*x . The case resolved with a $48,000 settlement to the plaintiff and a two‑year consent decree mandating comprehensive policy reforms. These include: A formal process for requesting reasonable accommodations; Posting of employee rights under federal anti‑discrimination statutes: Training for all Washington‑area employees on ADA/Title VII compliance; Specialized training for hiring managers on accommodations and non‑discrimination

This outcome serves as a potent reminder: employers must assess candidates based on their qualifications, not stereotypes about “monthly cycles.” Medical conditions tied to Menstruation may constitute a disability. Denying employment on that basis is both discriminatory and actionable.

Key Takeaways for Job Seekers and Employers
If your medical condition affects work, you may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation—whether temporarily shifting an interview or adjusting hours.
Employers must engage in the accommodation process in good faith and cannot penalize applicants or employees for legitimate medical needs.

If you’ve faced hurdles in the workplace—whether due to gender, disability, or pregnancy‑related conditions—know that the law is on your side. At Dalrymple Law LLC, we advocate fiercely for individuals whose potential has been unfairly dismissed. If you’ve been denied employment or treated unfairly for reasons tied to disability or s*x, contact Dalrymple Law LLC to explore your rights and options.

Call now to connect with business.

06/13/2025

In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools (Docket 24-249), the Supreme Court recently addressed a significant disability-rights issue. A.J.T., a Minnesota teenager diagnosed with severe epilepsy, experiences incapacitating morning seizures. From 2015 onward, her school district denied her parents’ request to schedule Individualized Educational Program (IEP) sessions in the afternoon or evening, compelling her to truncate her school day to just 4.25 hours—well below the typical 6.5-hour academic day.

When the district proposed further curtailment of instructional time, A.J.T.’s parents initiated proceedings under the IDEA, arguing the refusal violated her right to a free appropriate public education. An administrative law judge, followed by the district court and the Eighth Circuit, agreed and ordered compensatory remedies as well as evening instruction.

However, A.J.T.’s subsequent ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims encountered obstacles. Lower courts granted summary judgment to the district, imposing a higher standard requiring proof of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” by school officials.

The Supreme Court rejected this elevated threshold, holding that ADA and Rehabilitation Act standards in education mirror those in other discrimination contexts. Plaintiffs need not prove malicious intent—only discriminatory impact rooted in disability—to establish liability. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and remanded for proceedings consistent with this clarified standard.

Violations included claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and IDEA (via administrative proceedings).

Key takeaway: School districts cannot avoid ADA or Rehabilitation Act scrutiny by asserting benign intent. Students with disabilities need only demonstrate that school practices result in unequal access—not that officials acted vindictively. This decision safeguards equitable educational opportunity, reaffirming substance over form.

Call now to connect with business.

06/06/2025

In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees regardless of majority or minority status from workplace discrimination.

The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, involved Marlean Ames, a heteros*xual woman with over 15 years of service. After being passed over for a promotion in favor of a le***an colleague and subsequently demoted, Ames alleged that her s*xual orientation was the basis for these adverse employment actions. Both the district and appellate courts dismissed her claim, imposing an additional burden on her as a majority-group member to demonstrate “background circumstances” indicative of discrimination.

However, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this heightened evidentiary standard. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, stating that imposing extra hurdles on majority-group plaintiffs is inconsistent with the statute’s text and purpose.

This ruling affirms that the right to a workplace free from discrimination is universal. Employers must ensure that their practices do not inadvertently disadvantage any group. For those who believe they have experienced workplace discrimination, this decision underscores the importance of seeking legal counsel to understand and assert their rights under Title VII.

Call now to connect with business.

05/30/2025

In a recent federal case, a former employee of a national restaurant chain secured a $95,000 settlement after enduring egregious national origin harassment and retaliation. The employee, of Iranian descent, faced persistent mockery from colleagues and supervisors, including derogatory remarks about her accent and appearance. Despite reporting these incidents to management and human resources, the company failed to take corrective action. Instead, she was terminated under a policy inconsistently enforced among employees. 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin and retaliation for reporting such conduct. The settlement not only provides monetary relief but also mandates the employer to revise its harassment and retaliation policies, implement comprehensive training programs, and report on compliance measures. 

This case underscores the imperative for employers to foster inclusive workplaces and respond promptly to discrimination complaints. For employees, it highlights the legal protections available against workplace harassment and retaliation. 

If you have experienced similar workplace injustices, contact Dalrymple Law LLC to discuss your rights and potential remedies.

Call now to connect with business.

05/22/2025

A recent settlement underscores the imperative for employers to uphold the rights of pregnant workers. A bartender at a popular Austin establishment faced reduced hours after her pregnancy became apparent. Following a hospitalization for a virus, she was terminated, with management citing concerns over her being a “liability” and fears that “something bad was going to happen.” 

This conduct contravenes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit, resulting in a $42,000 settlement for the affected employee. Additionally, the employer agreed to implement a written anti-discrimination policy, provide training to all employees, and post notices affirming its obligations under federal employment discrimination laws. 

This case serves as a poignant reminder that employment decisions must not be influenced by pregnancy-related biases. If you believe you’ve faced similar discrimination, Dalrymple Law LLC is here to advocate for your rights. Contact us for a confidential consultation. 

Call now to connect with business.

05/16/2025

A recent federal lawsuit underscores the critical importance of employers maintaining a workplace free from racial harassment. In this case, a Black yard worker endured repeated racial slurs from co-workers. Despite management’s awareness, they failed to take adequate steps to address the misconduct, ultimately leading the employee to resign.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibits racial harassment and mandates prompt action by employers upon receiving notice of such conduct. The lawsuit culminated in a settlement where the employer agreed to pay $175,000 and implement comprehensive measures to prevent future incidents.

This case serves as a poignant reminder that employers must proactively enforce anti-discrimination policies and ensure that supervisors are adequately trained to handle such situations. Neglecting these responsibilities can lead to significant legal and financial repercussions.

If you or someone you know has experienced workplace discrimination or harassment, it’s imperative to seek legal counsel. At Dalrymple Law LLC, we are committed to advocating for your rights and ensuring that justice is served. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.

Call now to connect with business.

Address

1627 Carrollton Avenue, Ste 1A
Indianapolis, IN
46202

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 12pm

Telephone

+13176147390

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Dalrymple Law LLC posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category