Alert:  Register for FortneyScott's Next Webinar Here -  "Filter Out the Noise - What Employers Need to Know About the Trump Administration Changes"

Jacqueline R. Scott

JACQUELINE R. SCOTT

CO-FOUNDER

1909 K Street, NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20006

Tele: (202) 689-1200 | Fax: (202) 689-1209

jscott@fortneyscott.com

Ms. Scott is a co-founder of FortneyScott, where her diverse practice focuses on business, international, and workplace matters.


She counsels U.S. and foreign-based clients on complying with U.S. workplace and tax laws and assists U.S. employers in expanding outside the U.S. She regularly advises clients on workplace investigations, executive compensation and related tax and employment issues; Service Contract and Davis Bacon audits and related matters; worker classification issues; and compliance with the wage and hour requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws. Ms. Scott also advises clients on federal government procurement matters, particularly with respect to the workplace.


Ms. Scott is a frequent lecturer on issues of international labor and employment law, including, expatriate and secondment agreements, overtime, minimum wage, data privacy, worker classification status, international tax, and human rights. She holds key leadership positions in international professional organizations, including, serving as President-elect of the Union Internationale des Avocats (International Association of Lawyers or UIA). UIA is an international association of lawyers committed to the protection of human rights, including worker’s rights and the defense of their universal nature, including, specifically, the defense of lawyers’ human rights in protecting the human rights of others. Ms. Scott formerly served as Director General of the UIA’s Institute for the Rule of Law (UIA-IROL) and has also served as a member of the ITC Pro-Bono Committee on International Model Contracts for Exporting SME’s.


Ms. Scott has significant experience and expertise in adjudicating both U.S. and international commercial and employment disputes. She served for many years as the United States’ Member and First Vice President of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, the seven-member, independent appellate forum of last resort that adjudicated claims made by United Nations employees worldwide. Drawing on years of experience in the securities industry as an attorney for an international financial institution, Ms. Scott has served in the United States as an arbitrator for the securities industry with the National Association of Securities Dealers.


Ms. Scott’s workplace investigations practice includes conducting workplace investigations for employers in the private, not-for-profit, and public sectors. She has investigated sensitive matters involving fraud and mismanagement; harassment and discrimination; and matters arising under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.


Ms. Scott’s wage and hour practice includes advising and representing clients, including not-for-profit organizations, on matters involving federal and state prevailing wage issues; and the FLSA, including minimum wage and overtime obligations and exemptions, classification of positions as exempt or non-exempt, overtime requirements for non-exempt employees and compensation strategies and policies for exempt employees. She also advises clients on matters involving the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors.


Formerly, Ms. Scott was in-house counsel to Merrill Lynch, an international brokerage firm, advising and litigating on matters involving securities and commodities compliance, various broker-dealer issues, and related employment matters. She also has extensive experience in the practice of corporate and international tax law, including project and tax-exempt bond finance, as well as ERISA, with Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, in New York, NY and Chadbourne & Parke, in Washington, D.C. Ms. Scott has trial and appellate litigation experience in state and federal courts. She formerly served as the General Counsel to the Junior League of Philadelphia.

Firm Practices


Professional Activities

  • President-Elect, Union Internationale des Avocats (International Association of Lawyers or UIA)
  • Former Director General, Union Internationale des Avocats' Institute for the Rule of Law (UIA-IROL)
  • Member, American Employment Law Conference (AELC)
  • Former Member, First Vice-President, United Nations Administrative Tribunal, 2003-2009
  • Former Arbitrator (Public), National Association of Securities Dealers


Admitted to Practice

  • District of Columbia
  • Connecticut
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • Virginia
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • Supreme Court of the United States


Education

  • Georgetown University Law Center
    (LL.M in International Law/Arbitration/Tax)
  • New York University School of Law (LL.M. in Taxation)
  • Vanderbilt University School of Law (J.D.)
  • Vanderbilt University (B.A., cum laude)


Languages

  • French
  • Spanish

Register for FortneyScott's Next Webinar on Wednesday, March 12

March 7, 2025
Filter Out the Noise – What Employers Need to Know About the Trump Administration Changes

Breaking News: Parts of EO 14173 Enjoined

February 22, 2025
On February 21, Judge Adam B. Abelson in the District Court for Maryland issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants (other than the President) from acting under parts of EO 14173. Specifically, the defendants are ordered not to: “pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards, contracts or obligations . . . or change the terms of any Current Obligation,” make federal contractors certify that they do not engage in DEI practices that violate anti-discrimination laws, or bring any enforcement actions (including FCA claims) based on the EO’s certification requirement. The government is still permitted to make lists of organizations to investigate. We will keep you apprised of any further developments.

Register for FortneyScott's Next Webinar

February 20, 2025
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).

Complaint Filed in D.C. District Court Challenging DOGE’s Access to Department of Labor Systems

February 7, 2025
On February 5, 2025, six Plaintiffs (the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (SEIU); The Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA); and Economic Policy Institute (EPI) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Labor (DOL), Labor’s Acting Secretary Vince Micone, the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS), and the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) from accessing DOL’s information systems and the sensitive data therein concerning both federal employees and private citizens. The complaint explains how DOGE, sanctioned only by Executive Order 14158 (Establishing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency), functions as a network of DOGE-related offices, teams, and roles overseen by Elon Musk within the Executive Office of the President and implanted within each federal agency. The complaint describes DOGE’s pattern as overtaking federal agencies without statutory authority, seizing their information systems, threatening career civil servants’ resistance with adverse employment action, and unilaterally dismantling or restructuring the agencies. As DOL is DOGE’s next posited target, plaintiffs seek to prevent DOGE from unlawfully accessing DOL’s sensitive information systems, including such systems maintained and managed by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Claims Administration, the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These systems include medical information, financial information, and personnel information, as well as the identities of anonymous whistleblowers. Plaintiffs allege that DOGE’s actions are unconstitutional because DOGE lacks lawful authority to either direct agency actions or access statutorily restricted government systems. Rather, DOGE’s function is limited to advising and assisting the President. Plaintiff’s claims mostly arise under the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects individuals harmed by “arbitrary and capricious” final agency actions and provides court intervention when such harm occurs. Specifically, Plaintiffs accuse DOL of unlawfully threatening federal employees with termination, violating information privacy statutes by instructing and disclosing confidential and private records, creating new rules without meeting “notice and comment” requirements, and abusing its discretion. As relief, Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare DOGE’s access to DOL’s systems as unlawful. Plaintiffs also request a Court order forbidding DOL from granting DOGE access to DOL’s systems, taking adverse personnel action against employees who refuse providing DOGE with unlawful access, and providing non-public DOL information to any person with a conflict of interest. This is the first complaint filed challenging DOGE’s access to sensitive government information systems.

Complaint Challenging EO 14173 Filed in Maryland U.S. District Court

February 7, 2025
On February 3, 2025, four plaintiffs (the National Association of Diverse Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland) jointly filed a complaint challenging EO 14151 (“Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) and EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”). The complaint does not challenge the revocation of 11246 yet addresses the legality of §§3-4 of EO 14173. The complaint alleges that EO 14173 is unconstitutional on various grounds and seeks a court order overturning the EO. With respect to EO 14173, the complaint alleges that §3 violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. By threatening FCA enforcement against federal contractors and grantees who certify that they do not operate undefined “programs promoting DEI,” plaintiffs allege that §3 chills the expression of or participation in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives. Plaintiffs also alleges that §3 violates separation of powers because it empowers the executive branch, rather than Congress, to control federal funding based on whether contractors or grantees operate “programs promoting DEI.” As for §4 of EO 14173, the complaint alleges that it likewise violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by threatening civil investigation and “deterrence” against anyone who expresses support for undefined “illegal DEI.” Furthermore, because §4 is vague with respect to terms (e.g., “illegal DEIA and DEIA policies”) and the criteria for selecting which organizations are subject to investigation or enforcement actions, plaintiffs also allege §4 violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We anticipate additional plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits related to EO 14173 are forthcoming.
Show More
Share by: