About Charlie Plumb
Charlie Plumb is a labor and employment attorney with the McAfee & Taft law firm. He represents management in all phases of employment law and labor relations. Much of his practice is dedicated to counseling employers on compliance with a broad range of state and federal employment laws and regulations and educating management on best practices for avoiding disputes arising from the employer/employee relationship. He also has extensive litigation experience before federal and state courts, regulatory and administrative agencies, and in arbitration matters involving claims of discrimination, wrongful discharge, retaliatory discharge, breach of contract, and constitutional law violations.
As part of his labor practice, Charlie represents unionized employers in collective bargaining negotiations with labor unions, arbitrates grievances, and defends management against a variety of claims before the National Labor Relations Board and Department of Justice and in state and federal courts. He also represents employers who seek to maintain a non-unionized workforce by counseling management on union avoidance strategies and by providing training and advice to management and supervisors. His clients include numerous municipalities throughout Oklahoma and companies engaged in the manufacturing and distribution, construction, energy, public utility, technology and business services industries.
Charlie is a member of the American Bar Association's Labor and Employment Law Section and the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Labor Council. He is also the designated representative of McAfee & Taft as the exclusive member firm representing Oklahoma in the Employers Counsel Network, a nationwide affiliation of leading law firms providing legal assistance and representation to employers.
Charlie is a frequent speaker and author on workplace issues. He is also co-editor of the Oklahoma Employment Law Letter, a monthly review of new court decisions, regulations and laws that affect state employers.
Charlie’s achievements have earned him inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America (labor and employment law), Oklahoma Super Lawyers (employment and labor, civil litigation defense), Benchmark Litigation and Chambers USA Guide to America's Leading Lawyers for Business, where he has been lauded as “an impressive public speaker who utilizes his vast experience to effectively defend clients.” Researchers at Chambers & Partners also quoted market observers as admiring him for his “practicality of advice and specialized knowledge of complex legal issues,” with sources commenting that he “immediately commands respect, is always up to date and knows how to handle a problem.”
It comes as no surprise that employers increasingly find themselves dealing with workplace challenges relating to Ebola. The issues tend to arise in two contexts: How should employers respond to employee concerns, and what steps should employers take to protect their workforce from the Ebola virus?
Beginning January 1, 2015, employers have new obligations to report injuries and illnesses to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The method of reporting injuries and illnesses, as well a public access to an employer’s workplace accident information, will also change.
It’s no secret to employers that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken a more provocative and confrontational approach to investigating and litigating claims of employment discrimination. But the EEOC’s treatment of Case New Holland, Inc. takes “pushing the envelope” to a new level. To make matters worse, a federal court has OK’d the EEOC’s […]
During the last several months, a number of government agencies and courts have taken the position that a company can be considered the employer of another company’s employees for purposes of employment law obligations.
On April 25, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although disclaiming any authority to prohibit employers from obtaining or using criminal history information concerning applicants or employees, the EEOC […]
From time to time, employers discharge employees because they’re “not a good fit” or “not a team player.” While these may be perfectly good reasons for ending someone’s employment, be aware that in some situations courts or jurors may believe the employer is using that explanation as a way to conceal a discriminatory motive.
Car dealerships must be a Mecca for pranks. The combination of substantial periods of downtime with a lively sales staff leads to workplace fun. But what happens when things turn ugly, and someone gets hurt? Does the employer bear any responsibility?
Hard to believe, but this spring was the first time an Oklahoma case answered the question whether offensive language directed by an employee toward a supervisor disqualifies the fired employee from receiving unemployment benefits. Like many employment questions, the answer is not as clear cut as you might expect. Throw-down at the car dealership Jeffrey […]