Contact Us
Contact us
  • (202) 804-3393

Joanna Friedman

Deputy Managing Partner

Joanna Friedman was recently promoted to Deputy Managing Partner with the Federal Practice Group, focusing on federal employment law from the pre-litigation phase through all stages of litigation and before administrative bodies such as the EEOC and MSPB. Ms. Friedman’s expertise includes EEO discrimination; reasonable accommodation requests; retaliation for whistleblower disclosures; misconduct and performance defense; security clearance; disability retirement; and Inspector General Investigations. She regularly represents intelligence agency employees as well as law enforcement officers in discrimination and disciplinary cases. Ms. Friedman has represented employees in hundreds of negotiated settlements and has prepared motions that led to findings of liability for discrimination and whole relief as well as reversal of EEOC Administrative Judge’s decisions. Ms. Friedman is an experienced trainer of EEO related issues and performance and conduct defense for participants of federal training programs.

Before joining the Federal Practice Group, Ms. Friedman was a partner in another employment law firm where she specialized in federal employment law. Prior to this affiliation, she represented federal employees at a Washington, D.C.-based employment law firm. In addition to her significant federal employment litigation experience, she also has substantial courtroom experience representing individuals charged with criminal law offenses while working with a private criminal law defense firm, as well as a private bar attorney for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office.

Ms. Friedman earned her juris doctorate at St. John’s University School of Law. During her time in law school, she was an active member of the Public Interest Committee, an intern at the Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Division in Queens, as well as a participant in the New York City Courtroom Advocates Program, representing women seeking orders of protection. Additionally, she received a master’s degree in law from American University Washington School of Law in the Program on Law and Government where she concentrated her studies on advanced constitutional and civil rights law. She also holds a B.A. from American University, where she majored in Law and Society at the School of Public Affairs.

Complainant v. United States Agency for Global Media (March 2022): This complaint involved allegations of race and reprisal discrimination pertaining to several non-selections of Appellant. The Administrative Judge sanctioned the Agency by issuing a default judgment for its failure to show good cause for its extreme delay in investigative Complainant’s complaint. As relief, the Administrative Judge ordered Complainant be reinstated to one of the positions at issue in the complaint with full back pay, interest, and benefits; $8,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages; 8 hours of training to personnel in the Agency’s EEO office on the processing of complaints; and reimbursement of Complainant’s attorney fees.

Employee v. Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicative Facility (October 2021): Ms. Friedman secured a favorable decision for an employee by reversing the decision to deny the employee a Top-Secret Security Clearance for allegedly having to many foreign contacts and assets.

Appellant v. United States Postal Service, Appeal No. 2019004237 (June 2021): This complaint involved allegations of age and sex discrimination in a non-selection. The Office of Federal Operations reversed the Administrative Judge’s decision granting summary judgment finding that there were material facts in dispute over the selection process and the selecting official’s purported discriminatory animus of the Appellant.

Appellant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affaris, Appeal No. 2021003247 and 2021000314 (Feb. 2021): The Office of Federal Operations held that the Agency breached its settlement agreement with the Appellant, awarded specific performance and reimbursement of attorney fees, and when the Agency failed to comply with the Order, granted Appellant’s Petition for Enforcement with payment of the additional attorney fees incurred.

Appellant v. Department of the Navy (January 2021): Ms. Friedman successfully appealed the Agency’s decision to dismiss a formal complaint for denial of retirement credentials.

Complainant v. Dep’t of the Navy (January 2021): This complaint involved allegations of hostile work environment and discrimination based on race, sex, disability, and reprisal. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Agency failed to accommodate the Complainant and retaliated against Complainant when by placing Complainant on administrative leave and restricting Complainant’s access to the Base. The matter settled with the Complainant receiving a large six-figure monetary award and reimbursement of his attorney fees.

Employee v. Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicative Facility (October 2020): Ms. Friedman secured a favorable decision for an employee issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Security Clearance, thereby reinstating access to the employee’s Top-Secret clearance.

Employee v. Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicative Facility (February 2020): Ms. Friedman secured a favorable decision for an employee issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Security Clearance, thereby reinstating access to the employee’s Top-Secret clearance.

Complainant v. Department of Justice (November 2019): An EEOC Administrative Judge held that the Bureau of Prisons liable for discrimination based on Complainant’s race, national origin and in retaliation through subjecting her to harassment for a period of two years. The award of damages included $75,000 for the Complainant’s pain and suffering as well as reimbursement of her attorney fees.

Appellant v. Dep’t of Air Force (August 2019): The MSPB Administrative Judge reversed the Agency’s indefinite suspension of the Appellant finding that it failed to meet the procedural requirements of 5 U.S.C. §7513 associated with the Appellant’s suspension of access to classified information.

Complainant v. Federal Aviation Administration (March 2018): This complaint involved allegations of sex discrimination when the Agency did not select Complainant for a promotion. The Administrative Judge held the Agency liable for discrimination and ordered Complainant to be reinstated to the position with full back pay, interest, and benefits; a large six-figure monetary award in compensatory damages for pain and suffering; and reimbursement of attorney fees.

Appellant v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Appeal No. 0720150002 (February 2018): This complaint involved allegations of sex and retaliation discrimination and harassment creating a hostile work environment that eventually led to the Complainant no longer being able to work due to impact of the work environment on her health. The Administrative Judge issued sanctions against the agency through a default judgment for the agency’s obstruction of the discovery process, and its failure to timely complete an expedited investigation of an amendment to the complaint. Upon the agency’s appeal of the damages award, the Office of Federal Operations sustained the hearing judge’s decision to award Complainant $200,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $223,116.35 in pecuniary damages and $131,262.50 in attorney fees.

Complainant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (January 2014): This complaint involved allegations of race, sex, disability and reprisal discrimination and harassment creating a hostile work environment. The Administrative Judge issued sanctions against the agency to include an adverse inference on all of Complainant’s discovery requests, and ultimately a default judgment against the agency for its failure to provide timely and sufficient discovery responses. The Order awarding damages included: implementation of reasonable accommodations; reassignment; cleaning of personnel files; amended performance evaluations; restoration of leave hours; payment of six-figures in non-pecuniary compensatory damages; payment in pecuniary compensatory damages; and reimbursement of five-figures in attorney fees.

Complainant v. Central Intelligence Agency, Appeal No. 0120130510 (May 2013): This complaint involved allegations of sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment and reprisal discrimination resulting in the termination of the Complainant. The Office of Federal Operations reversed the Administrative Judge’s decision granting summary judgment finding that the allegations of harassment did rise to level of actionable harassment and there were material facts in dispute about whether certain responsible management officials knew of Complainant’s protected EEO activity and its connection to his termination.

  • LL.M, Constitutional and Civil Rights Law, American University Washington School of Law
  • J.D., St. John’s University School of Law
  • B.A, American University
  • Maryland
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • Maryland
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, Sustaining Member
  • American Bar Association