Our employment discrimination lawyers have repeatedly blogged about the dangers of employees representing themselves in legal proceedings. Navigating the legal landscape can be a daunting task, especially when it comes to employment law. One term you might come across in this journey is “pro se.” It’s a Latin phrase meaning “for oneself,” and in the legal world, it means representing yourself in court without the aid of an attorney. While this might sound like an empowering, cost-saving move, let’s dive into why going pro se is often a very bad idea.
Employment law is a multifaceted field, encompassing everything from wrongful termination and sexual harassment to various forms of unlawful discrimination based on race/color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, disability, and age. Each of these areas has its own set of intricate rules, regulations, and procedures that need to be meticulously followed. And overtime, FMLA, workers’ compensation retaliation, and FMLA claims are even more complex. So, when you choose to go pro se, you’re essentially taking on the role of both a plaintiff and an attorney, which requires a deep understanding of the law and court procedures.
Turning to Google for legal advice might seem like a good idea, but it’s like trying to learn surgery from a YouTube video—an entertaining disaster waiting to happen! Employment law is a complex maze of rules and regulations, and while Google might give you some basics, it can’t replace the expertise and strategic thinking of a seasoned attorney. Imagine showing up to court with printouts of internet forums versus having a professional who knows the ins and outs of the legal system, fights for your rights, and navigates every twist and turn with ease. Save yourself the headaches and potential pitfalls—trust a real lawyer, not an algorithm!
The case of Lisa Davy provides us with another good example of how a singular misstep by a pro se employee can doom a claim. Davy asserted a claim of wrongful termination and discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After having her claim dismissed on the pleadings by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Davy appealed. In a five-sentence opinion (four of which were just perfunctory procedure), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding: “Dismissal of Davy’s Title VII claim was proper because Davy alleged that she was an “independent contractor” of defendant. See Adcock v. Chrysler Corp., 166 F.3d 1290, 1292 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that ‘Title VII protects employees, but does not protect independent contractors’).”
So, simply because Davy’s include just one allegation in her wrongful termination complaint that she was an independent contractor, she lost. It killed her employment discrimination claims.
Two things might have happened if Davy’s had consulted a lawyer. First, as an employment law attorney knows best, just because an employer puts the label of “independent contract” on a worker does not mean that the worker is, in fact, an independent contract and not an employee. It does not matter even if there is a contract that dubs the worker to be an independent contractor. If that was the case, then all employers would just make every employee sign an agreement saying that they are independent contractors and never have to worry about being liable for discrimination, harassment, or wrongfully firing an employee under Title VII. Had Davy consulted and retained the best employment discrimination lawyer near her, that lawyer could have evaluated those criteria to determine if Davy was really an employee, include those favorable factors in her complaint, and avoided the killer blunder of self-declaring herself an independent contractor.
Now, second, and in the alternative, let’s say that Davy consulted an attorney, who properly advised her that she was an independent contract. In that case, the employment discrimination lawyer could have best advised her that no matter what she did, she would have eventually lost. Instead, Davy spent nearly three years and likely thousands of dollars fighting an unwinnable battle.
When your job, livelihood, and financial stability are on the line, the stakes are incredibly high. Employment disputes can have significant repercussions, and the outcomes of these cases can affect your career and personal life for years to come. Without professional legal representation, the chances of making costly mistakes—such as missing deadlines, improperly filing documents, or failing to present critical evidence—are significantly higher.
Employers typically have seasoned attorneys who specialize in employment law. These legal professionals are well-versed in the tactics and strategies that can be used to defend their clients. When you go pro se, you’re stepping into the ring with these experienced attorneys without the same level of expertise and resources. An employment attorney can level the playing field, advocating on your behalf, and ensuring that your rights are protected.
Brian Spitz is the founding and managing partner of Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, dedicated to protecting employee rights. With a proven track record and a commitment to justice, he and his team have successfully fought for employees across the nation. If you’re facing an employment dispute, don’t go pro se—contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, and get the professional representation you deserve. All initial consultations are free, and Spitz does not charge any fees unless you recover. Thus, there is no financial incentive to go it alone.
Best Employee’s Rights Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Should I Handle My Disability Discrimination Case By Myself? No
- Employment Discrimination: Don’t Go It Alone
- Am I An Independent Contractor Or Employee Under The FLSA?
- Can “Independent Contractors” Actually Be Employees Under The FLSA?
- Good Attorneys Will Help You Not Bring Bad Claims
Disclaimer
The race, gender, and national origin discrimination information provided in this wrongful termination blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice about employment law. While our employee’s rights lawyers best strive to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the content, it is not intended to substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific employment or wrongful firing circumstances. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal guidance. The use of this employee’s rights blog or any communication through it does not establish an attorney-client relationship with Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm nor its attorneys. For legal advice pertaining to your individual situation, it is best to consult a qualified attorney.