DCWageLaw Wins $172K Sanctions Award as Federal Court Affirms Workers' Right to Their Chosen Counsel

In a $172,635.10 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stands behind a core principle of access to justice: ethics accusations may not be wielded as a litigation weapon to separate low-wage workers from the lawyers they chose.

WASHINGTON, June 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- DCWageLaw has won, in full, its motion for sanctions in consolidated wage-and-hour class actions against United American Security, LLC d/b/a GardaWorld — a ruling the firm views less as a victory for itself than as a vindication of the workers it serves. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia awarded the firm $172,635.10 in attorneys' fees and costs after rejecting, on every ground, an attempt by GardaWorld's counsel to disqualify DCWageLaw from representing hundreds of D.C. security officers seeking the minimum wages the law guarantees them.

In a memorandum opinion issued June 9, 2026, in Chang v. United American Security, LLC, Nos. 24-2377 and 24-3592 (D.D.C.), Judge Beryl A. Howell granted DCWageLaw's sanctions motion in full under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. In a lengthy decision, the Court assessed $172,635 in sanctions against D.C. attorneys Adam Calandra, Teresa Jakubowski, and the Chicago law firm of Barnes & Thornburg for "behavior that was indeed at least reckless and rose, at times, to bad faith."

The decision affirms two principles at the heart of the firm's practice: that workers — no matter their wage — are entitled to counsel of their choosing, and that accusations about a lawyer's ethics are too serious to be used as a tactical instrument. The court found that the disqualification motion was meritless on all six grounds asserted, that it was timed and pursued for tactical reasons, and that it unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.

Significantly, the court refused to let the motion simply be withdrawn once it failed, writing that defense counsel's effort "to impugn the reputation of plaintiffs' counsel by calling their ethics into question has boomeranged." The ruling sends a clear message that courts will protect the attorney-client relationship from interference — especially where the clients are workers whose claims might never be heard without dedicated counsel.

Why This Ruling Matters
Wage-and-hour cases like these are rarely about large sums for any one person; they are about whether the minimum protections the law promises — a lawful wage, overtime, fringe benefits — are real for the people who depend on them. For low-wage workers, access to those protections runs through their lawyers. A disqualification motion aimed at workers' counsel is therefore aimed, in practical effect, at the workers themselves: as DCWageLaw told the court, left unresolved, the accusations threatened to ensure that the claims of hundreds of low-wage workers would never be heard on their merits.

The motion at issue was filed late at night, two days before a major filing deadline, alongside eighteen deposition subpoenas and threats to replicate it across seventeen other pending cases. DCWageLaw responded the way it asks its clients to be treated: on the merits. The firm answered every accusation, sought an emergency hearing rather than letting the charges linger, and prevailed on each of the six grounds asserted. The court found the conduct on the other side at least reckless, rising at times to bad faith — and ordered that DCWageLaw's fees be paid personally by the responsible attorneys and their firm.

Statements from DCWageLaw

"The measure of this ruling isn't the dollar figure — it's the principle the Court protected. Every worker in this city, whether they guard a building overnight or run a company, has the right to choose their lawyer and to have their case decided on its merits. When that right came under attack, the Court defended it without hesitation. That should give every working person in the District confidence that the courthouse doors are open to them."
— JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, Principal, DCWageLaw

"The integrity of our profession depends on ethics rules being honored as obligations, not deployed as weapons. This ruling reaffirms that those rules exist to protect clients and the courts — and that judges will enforce that boundary. We take no satisfaction in another firm's sanction. We take great satisfaction in knowing our clients' cases will now be heard, on the merits, with the counsel they chose."
— JONATHAN TUCKER, Attorney, DCWageLaw

The Fight Ahead: Lawful Wages for D.C. Security Officers
With the disqualification matter resolved, DCWageLaw returns its full attention to the underlying cases, Chang v. United American Security, LLC and Merritt v. United American Security, LLC, consolidated class actions alleging that GardaWorld failed to timely pay security officers the heightened minimum wage and fringe benefits that District of Columbia law guarantees the profession. In the same opinion, the court delivered a second win for the workers: it held that their claims under the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law may proceed, rejecting GardaWorld's argument that those claims cannot stand on their own. DCWageLaw also represents GardaWorld employees in more than fifteen additional wage-and-hour matters pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Superior Court — part of the firm's sustained commitment to ensuring that the people who keep this city's buildings safe are paid what the law requires.

About DCWageLaw
DCWageLaw, the Law Office of Justin Zelikovitz, PLLC, is a Washington, D.C. firm dedicated to representing workers in wage-and-hour disputes, including claims for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and fringe benefits under D.C. and federal law. The firm represents employees in individual and class actions throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia.

SOURCE DCWageLaw