Photo of David T. Wiley

David T. Wiley is the Knowledge Management (“KM”) Attorney for Jackson Lewis P.C.’s Wage and Hour Practice Group, and is based in the Birmingham, Alabama, office.

Mr. Wiley creates and manages legal and electronic resources and materials to provide innovative client services; serves as a resource for other practice group members; monitors and analyzes regulatory and case law developments; and contributes to the firm’s blogs and legal updates. In his knowledge management role, Mr. Wiley draws on more than two decades of training, advising, and representing employers nationwide in federal and state courts and before administrative agencies on a variety of employment-related issues, including collective and class actions and all manner of discrimination and retaliation claims.

He is a regular speaker at employment law and human resources seminars and conferences, including the Alabama State Bar Labor and Employment Law Section’s annual conference.

Prior to obtaining his MBA and law degrees, Mr. Wiley served six distinguished years as an officer in the United States Navy Supply Corps. While attending law school, Mr. Wiley was the Senior Articles Editor for the Georgia Law Review.

In a recent blog post, I discussed the fact that under the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA, employers generally are not required to provide their employees with a stress-free work environment or one that possesses a “just right” amount of stress, which I referred to as a Goldilocks work environment (Read More).

Just over two decades ago, when the ADA was in its infancy and this blogger was a summer associate heading into his final year of law school, I attended a hearing in federal court where the judge was considering a motion to dismiss the ADA claims of a plaintiff-employee.  The plaintiff was claiming, among other

In 2009, Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA), unquestionably expanding the definition of a disability under the ADA and, for all practical purposes in most cases, shifting the focus of disability lawsuits in federal court.  Specifically, prior to the ADAAA’s enactment employers routinely argued that the plaintiff-employee’s ADA claim failed right out

As the week begins with new lexicon coming out of our nation’s capital, a recent federal court of appeals ruling reminds us that, in most situations, it’s the employer’s assessment of the facts, not the employee’s “alternative facts,” that matter when deciding the appropriate punishment for employee performance or misconduct issues.  And, perhaps more importantly,