Experience
Mr. Albetta provides employers expertise based upon extensive experience in both litigation and practical HR:
- He was a member of the successful defense team in EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F.Supp. 1264 (N.D.Ill. 1986), aff’d, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988);
- He worked on the successful defense of the University of North Carolina System against charges of discrimination in higher education brought by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education;
- He successfully defended Los Alamos National Laboratories and its Director against claims of employment discrimination and civil rights violations;
- He has successfully advised hundreds of clients in North Carolina and around the United States on employment issues and problems, helping them to meet their organizational needs while avoiding litigation;
- As a certified Mediator in the North Carolina Superior Courts, he assists employers in resolving disputes through reasonable negotiation and compromise, without the need for litigation.
Mr. Albetta is admitted to practice in North Carolina and is an inactive member of the bars of Washington, D.C., and New Mexico.
He received his B.A. degree from the State University of New York at Binghamton and his J.D. degree, with honors, from New York Law School.
CASE STUDIES
Representing the UNC System
The Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, and its successor, the U.S. Department of Education…
Representing Sears
In EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., referenced above, the EEOC filed a nationwide pattern and practice case claiming, among other things, that Sears discriminated against women…
Representing Los Alamos National Laboratory
In lawsuits alleging race and national origin discrimination in layoffs by Los Alamos National Laboratory (“LANL”), defense…
Curabitur aliquam justo ex, ac varius sem facilisis a. Fusce ipsum enim, ultrices at ante sollicitudin, faucibus hendrenunc. Nullam tempor nulla eu imperdiet interdum.
Representing the UNC System
The Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, and its successor, the U.S. Department of Education (“DofE”) initiated administrative proceedings against the University of North Carolina System and simultaneously withheld approximately $90 million per year in federal funds from UNC on the basis of DofE’s claim that UNC was maintaining a dual system of racially identifiable colleges and universities. OCR-DofE sought to impose a remedy that included its dictation of which educational programs would be offered at the various institutions of the UNC system.
UNC President William Friday and the UNC Board of Governors opposed OCR-DofE’s attempt to dictate UNC’s educational policy and to reconfigure the educational programs across the UNC System on several bases. A principal basis was that the special character and programs of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (“HBCU’s”) in the UNC System continued to provide educational opportunities that were uniquely valuable to African-American students and to the African-American community in North Carolina generally. UNC also argued that integration of the HBCU’s was proceeding at a rate appropriate to their special status.
The legal defense team filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, obtaining an injunction against OCR-DofE’s termination of federal support unless and until it had proved violations of law in the administrative hearing proceedings. With the removal of the chokehold of withdrawal of federal funding, UNC was able both to present its positions in the hearing and to negotiate a fair and educationally sound consent agreement once OCR-DofE withdrew its demand that UNC relinquish control of education to the federal government.
See https://finding-aids.lib.unc.edu/40015/ (“Historical Information”); see also http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/L-0133/excerpts/excerpt_7047.html
Representing Sears
In EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., referenced above, the EEOC filed a nationwide pattern and practice case claiming, among other things, that Sears discriminated against women in hiring and promotion into its higher-income commission sales positions. The EEOC based its claims exclusively on evidence of statistical disparities between men and women in commission sales positions.
The defense presented as witnesses numerous women in managerial and commission sales positions at Sears who described Sears’s affirmative action program, and established that the disparities were, at that time, the result of the aversion of most women applicants and employees to commission sales jobs due to the hyper-competitive, “dog-eat-dog” environment they generally involved, a defense that resulted in judgment for Sears.
Representing Los Alamos National Laboratory
In lawsuits alleging race and national origin discrimination in layoffs by Los Alamos National Laboratory (“LANL”), defense counsel commissioned opinion surveys of several New Mexico counties, which confirmed that potential jury pools would be contaminated by the existence of widespread public biases against LANL in several counties. On the basis of the survey evidence, the defense obtained a highly unusual change of venue in a civil case to Albuquerque. Following the change of venue, counsel defended two of the cases through jury trials, resulting in jury verdicts for LANL in both cases.