Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.
Virginia's Civil Rights Law Firm


(804) 783-2000









The facts and circumstances of each case are unique and therefore the fact that a law firm has obtained significant verdicts and results in other cases in no way guarantees that other cases will have similar results.

 

In The News

September 11, 2010 –  Civil rights attorney Thomas H. Roberts, and spokesman for Freedom Works Foundation argues that citizens are asleep at the switch as their rights are quietly being removed. He hopes to awaken citizens in Bennett v. Vilardo, now pending in the Circuit Court for the City of Colonial Heights and destined to be heard by the Virginia Supreme Court. In Virginia, several lower state court rulings have erroneously followed federal courts' decisions that eviscerate the rights of Virginia citizens guaranteed by the Virginia Constitution. While the Virginia Supreme Court in Robb v. Shockoe Slip Foundation, 228 Va. 678, 324 S.E. 2d 674 (1995), confirmed the fundamental rights of its citizens, setting forth the “fundamental analysis” for determining whether a constitutional provision is self executing or enforceable without a special grant by the legislature, the federal courts and lower state courts fail to properly identify or follow the rule of law laid out in Robb. " A constitutional provision is self-executing when it expressly so declares. Even without benefit of such a declaration, constitutional provisions in bills of rights and those merely declaratory of common law are usually considered self-executing. The same is true of provisions which specifically prohibit particular conduct. Provisions of a Constitution of a negative character are generally, if not universally, construed to be self-executing." Robb, 228 Va. at 681-82 (quotations and citations omitted).  A constitutional provision is self executing, then, if it expressly so declares.  A provision is also usually self-executing if (1) it is part of a bill of rights; (2) is merely declaratory of common law; (3) prohibits particular conduct, or (4) is of a negative character.  Id. These courts consistently deny citizens the right to bring an action seeking remedies for violations of the rights contained in the bill of rights with the lone exception of the right to be free from governmental taking without just compensation. The federal courts and lower state courts have elevated the exception to liberty to be the only right recognized and enforceable. The simple and clear language of the Constitution makes it clear the framers of the Constitution were carving out an exception to the citizens' liberty by providing a temporing provision to the right of private property, where the good of all citizens might trump the right of private property--but only when the individual is duly compensated. Thus the Constitution provides the power and duty - the power of government to exercise immenent domain, infringing upon the right of personal property of the citizens provided the government pay the citizen "just compensation" for taking the property. It is obscene to read this exception to liberty as the only enforceable right of citizens in Virginia.

 

September 18, 2008 –  Civil rights attorney Thomas H. Roberts, and spokesman for Freedom Works Foundation believes that citizens face an insidious danger of the freedom guaranteed by the United States Constitution becoming eroded by so called conservatives who trade police power for liberty. Former prosecutor and now United States Judge Henry Hudson flushed the 4th Amendment claim of a Virginia man who complained that police officers violated his reasonable expectation of privacy by forced entry into his bathroom in his own home. The police were called to the home by his wife following a verbal spat. The officers had been informed that there had been no domestic violence prior to the entry. The wife met the officers at the front door to the home without any evidence of violence. The officers spoke with the man who made it clear that he intended to stay in his bathroom and was not interested in engaging in a face to face conference with the police officers. If the home is a man's castle, then the bathroom is the throne room and the police have no business barging in without a warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances. The Fourth Circuit upheld the decision by an unpublished opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the writ petition.

April 30, 2008 –  The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C., announced another victory after prevailing for its client in an ore tenus hearing after the client's application for renewal of his concealed weapon's permit was denied.  The firm also prevailed obtaining the dismissal of criminal charges of obstruction and reckless use of a firearm, both class 1 misdemeanor charges with maximum penalties of 1 year in jail and $2,500 fine for each charge.

March 13, 2007 –  The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C., announced another victory after prevailing for its client before the Virginia Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the commission, holding that the test to determine whether a worker's compensation claimant met her burden to market her residual capacity is a test of reasonableness. What constitutes a reasonable marketing effort depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  The factors the commission should consider in deciding whether a claimant has made reasonable good faith efforts to market his or her remaining capacity are: (1) the nature and extent of employee’s disability; (2) the employee’s training, age, experience, and education; (3) the nature and extent of employee’s job search; (4) the employee’s intent in conducting his job search; (5) the availability of jobs in the area suitable for the employee, considering his disability; and (6) any other matter affecting employee’s capacity to find suitable employment.

February 26, 2007 – Suit filed in the United States District Court in Norfolk, Virginia alleging violation of Title VII and First Amendment to the United States Constitution, seeking to hold Sheriff of Chesapeake, Virginia accountable to the law he is sworn to uphold

September 14, 2005 -- San Francisco's United States District Judge is taking another run at undermining the "unalienable" rights and freedoms "endowed by the Creator" declaring unconstitutional the national acknowledgment "under God."  This and the likely decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stands in conflict to the August 10, 2005 decision of the Fourth Circuit.

July 4, 2005 — The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. announced another victory in the battle to preserve the constitutional right of fit parents to make informed medical decisions including the right to reject treatment after weighing the risks and benefits of a particular treatment.

April 28, 2005 — The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. filed a class action suit for Hanover School Bus Drivers who have been required to work "off the clock" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Employees who want to be compensated for the "off the clock" work should opt in pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b).

July 23, 2003 — The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. announced another victory in the battle to preserve religious freedom after Henrico County, Virginia agreed to end the policy which violated the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act in one of its middle schools.

February 24, 2003 -- "Upon review of the record in this case and consideration of the argument submitted in support of and in opposition to the granting of an appeal, the Court is of opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of.  Accordingly, the Court refuses the petition for appeal."  Thomas H. Roberts, Esq. stated "With this confirmation by the Virginia Supreme Court, it is time for people to accept responsibility for their actions--we will see."

July 19, 2002 -- After several days of trial, Thomas H. Roberts, Esq. asked a Henrico County jury to find in favor of his client, a contractor who suffered substantial injuries after being struck repeatedly by Richmond's former prosecutor Joseph D. Morrissey.  Roberts urged the jury to carefully consider the evidence presented to them and to find that Morrissey's account of the incident was simply inconsistent.  Finally, Roberts urged the jury to award punitive damages in a sufficient amount to punish him and to send a message to others that wrong doing and an attempt to manipulate the system to cover up wrong doing will not be tolerated.  The jury awarded $1.04 Million, which ranked among the top 20 largest verdicts in the state of Virginia for 2002.

June 26, 2002 -- Thomas H. Roberts, Esq. denounces the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that attempts to remove the national acknowledgment "under God" which is the basis for the freedoms and rights which are "unalienable" and "endowed by the Creator."

August, 2001-- Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. announced a victory in a highly publicized action in Fairfax County.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Sheriff and other officials were not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for claims of 1st Amendment violations.  Further the court ruled that contrary to the argument of Fairfax, there is never qualified immunity in Title VII cases.

July 3, 2001-- Since the firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. took up the cause of two black men in the Town of Front Royal, positive changes have been obtained.  The parties have resolved the matter.

July 2, 2001-- Lynchburg - Under Common law long recognized by the Supreme Court of Virginia, citizen had every right to use reasonable force to repel an unlawful arrest

June 11, 2001-- Powhatan County was fortunate to have been given the opportunity to settle after it violated the Constitutional rights of the Powhatan Chapter of the student religious club, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, said Thomas H. Roberts, civil rights attorney and spokesman for Freedom Works Foundation, referring to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 11, 2001.

May 5, 2000 Civil Rights Attorney Thomas H. Roberts, and spokesman for Freedom Works Foundation announced he was pleased with the resolution of the Powhatan High School Federal Suit.  The students religious freedoms will be protected and the school will be training its faculty to comply with the First Amendment.  A victory for all!

  • DISCRIMINATION - FAIRFAX COUNTY

January 7, 2000 District Judge denied the attempt by Former Sheriff Peed to block the trial of two Deputy Sheriffs who allege that he retaliated against them after they complained of race discrimination in the Office of the Sheriff for Fairfax County, Virginia.  Peed appealed the decision to the United States Circuit Court.

  • PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED
    U.S. SUPREME COURT - SEX DISCRIMINATION

    December 27,1999 A petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the United Supreme Court in the sex discrimination case of Taylor v. Virginia Union University. Two female police officers formerly employed by Virginia Union University have asked the Supreme Court to reverse the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the district court in Richmond after they were denied the right to a fair trial.  The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.,  has filed the petition asking the United States Supreme Court to direct lower courts to conduct a more thorough analysis rather than retreating to sweeping generalizations often applied in discrimination cases.  Thomas H. Roberts is asking the Court to remove contrived restrictions on the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and to curtail the application of the "same actor inference" and the "stray comment rule". 

     

  • CONSTITUTION - 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS RESTORED

November 18, 1999  Civil Rights Attorney Thomas H. Roberts obtained the immediate restoration of the First Amendment Rights of Powhatan High School students to free speech and the free exercise of their religion.  Alleviating the need for an immediate temporary injunction, while standing before the United States District Court, the school approved the request of the student club of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to be treated like all the other student clubs, with the right to have guest speakers address their club and to announce their activities with other clubs over the school PA system.  In the event that the school agrees to provide full relief for the students rights under the Constitution, the 17 year old student will agree to dismiss the suit.  While abandoning its indefensible position of hostility towards the religious student club, no agreement has been reached to remedy the past violations.

November 17, 1999   High School student files a federal law suit seeking an injunction prohibiting Powhatan High School from discriminating against a student club, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, on the basis of its Christian viewpoint.  The suit also seeks to obtain an injunction against the school prohibiting it from further censorship of club.  Civil Rights Attorney Thomas H. Roberts represents the student.

November 9, 1999 Federal District Judge denies Police Officers' attempt to obtain immunity from suit after they entered a Chesterfield resident's home without a warrant.     Thomas H. Roberts opposed the attempt by the United States and Chesterfield County to prevent his client from seeking redress for violations of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court agreed with Roberts that "A warrantless entry into a person's home is presumptively unconstitutional and illegal."  The Judge ruled "Service of a subpoena would never give an officer a basis for a warrantless entry into somebody's home."

September 27,1999 Four Judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, concur with the law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.,  stating that the district court's decision should be vacated.  In the sex discrimination case of Taylor v. Virginia Union University, the dissent, with a more thorough analysis, calls into question sweeping generalizations often applied in discrimination cases, including the "same actor inference" and the "stray comment rule".  The majority, however, affirms the judgments despite the trial court errors.  An appeal to the United States Supreme Court is likely.

August 20, 1999 Law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. racks up another victory.  Dr. Aurelia Eggleston Ford, a prominent Richmond Psychologist and business woman in Jackson Ward District of Richmond, Virginia, challenged her brother-in-law, former Judge Willard Henry Douglas, Jr., his wife Jane Eggleston Douglas and her brother Neverett A. Eggleston, Jr., among others who were claiming to have been the beneficiaries to the exclusion of Dr. Ford of the Last Will and Testament of her father, Neverett A. Eggleston, Sr. Dr. Ford claimed that the purported Will, which Douglas claimed Eggleston executed in his presence at the age of 101, was a forgery.  The jury agreed

July 28, 1999 The County of Spotsylvania has resolved the $1 Million suit filed against it by Spotsylvania Fireman, D. Wayne Usher

May 14, 1999 Two former Deputy Sheriffs filed a $45 Million suit against Sheriff Carl R. Peed in Fairfax County, Virginia, who they contend fired them on November 20, 1998 for opposing alleged unlawful employment practices of race discrimination by communicating with the NAACP and other advocacy groups.  After filing the suit, the two Deputy Sheriffs were reinstated with backpay and benefits.  The case will be tried on the remaining issues including compensatory and punitive damages.

July 14, 1999 A private investigator, filed a complaint against  two police officers from Richmond and Chesterfield, Virginia, alleging they entered his home without a warrant, invitation or exigent circumstances to serve him with a subpoena to testify before a Grand Jury in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

February 19, 1999 — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Thomas H. Roberts of the law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. , in Taylor v. Virginia Union University, reversing the United States District Court for abusing its discretion in excluding evidence that Roberts contended was highly probative of unlawful discriminatory intent in two sex discrimination cases. The Court also agreed with Roberts that the claimants should not be limited to the official "charge" more often than not poorly drafted by EEOC bureaucrats. The Court stated, "It seems beyond cavil that the ‘reasonable investigation’ of an EEOC complaint would include an investigation of facts alleged in an affidavit filed with the complaint. Therefore, ‘we may consider the plaintiff’s statements in a sworn affidavit that she filed in support of the charge’ when determining whether a claim has been properly exhausted." BUT SEE - EN BANC

January 13, 1999 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Thomas H. Roberts of the law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C., in Fobian v. Storage Technology Corp., reversing the United States District Court dismissal based on jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals held that litigants could request a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct under Rule 60(b) by filing a motion with the trial court within one year while the case was on appeal in the Court of Appeals.

November 19, 1998 – The Town of Front Royal was served with a $45 Million suit by Civil Rights Attorney Thomas H. Roberts on behalf of Isaac Thompson, alleging that the town and his former supervisors, Eugene Tewalt, the former Director of Public Works and Clarence Deavers, engaged in discrimination based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 which makes it unlawful to discriminate by reason of race in the making and enforcement of contracts.

November 19, 1998 – $1 Million suit filed against Spotsylvania County Officials in Virginia for terminating a Fireman and Emergency Medical Technician who published public information on the Internet.

August 10, 1998 — a Chesterfield Jury awarded plaintiff $800,000.00 against defendant, after the law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C. successfully established that defendant could not discharge in Bankruptcy the debts and liabilities caused by the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

  • SERIOUS PERSONAL INJURY

September 12, 1997 — Virginia High Court reinstates a $100,000 jury verdict for a client of the law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C., who was injured by a bolt of fabric that slid from a store’s cutting table which resulted in $6,300 in medical expenses for a foot injury she suffered. O’Brien v. Everfast Corp. (Click jump site for full story.)