Attorneys

“I truly value my long term relationships with clients, whether large national or smaller regional companies – helping them navigate the ever changing laws about employees. My goal is to keep them under the radar of government enforcement agencies and plaintiffs. Where that is not possible, my goal shifts to helping them win if they are challenged or sued.”

Hope Eastman

Principal

301-951-9326
301-654-7354 FAX
heastman@paleyrothman.com

Download vCard Connect Blog


Hope is a member of the firm’s Employment Law practice. For more than 30 years she has represented a variety of businesses, trade associations, and non-profit organizations in all areas of employment law, including age, gender, race, and disability discrimination; sexual and other harassment; wage and hour matters; and non- competition disputes.

Hope thoroughly familiarizes herself with her clients’ businesses, their goals and needs, and then works with them to craft solutions to meet those needs. She works with companies to develop regulatory-sensitive employment policies for recruitment, selection, promotion, discipline, and termination of employees, and evaluates and advises clients with regard to major changes planned for their workforces and individual employee issues that come up regularly for most businesses.

A significant portion of her practice involves representing employers before the EEOC, the OFCCP, the Department of Labor, other federal agencies, and in federal and state court. She also serves as a mediator in employment disputes. Throughout her career, Hope has been involved in the shaping of federal employment law, both before Congress and with the Executive Branch.

Under Hope’s leadership the firm’s Employment Law group was named as one of only a handful of firms with offices in Maryland, selected as a 2015 “Best Law Firm,” for three consecutive years, with national rankings (Tier 1 or 2) in Employment Litigation. Paley Rothman, a mid-sized regional firm, was recognized among much larger national and international firms.

Paley Rothman also was one of twelve firms to receive a national ranking for Employment Law–Management (Tier 3). The Employment Law practice was also recognized locally, earning a Tier 1 ranking in Washington, D.C. for Litigation–Labor & Employment and a Tier 2 ranking for Employment Law–Management. Since that time, Paley Rothman has maintained each of those outstanding national and local rankings.

Read More Read Less
Practice Areas
Bar Admissions

  • Maryland

  • District of Columbia

  • California

Education

  • J.D., Cum Laude, Harvard Law School

Accolades & Awards

  • Best Law Firms – U.S. News & Best Lawyers 
         - Tier 2 National Ranking for Litigation - Labor & Employment
         - Tier 2 National Ranking for Employment Law - Management
         - Tier 1 Metropolitan (D.C. area) Ranking for Litigation - Labor & Employment
         - Tier 1 Metropolitan (D.C. area) Ranking for Employment Law - Management

  • Best Lawyers in America - Best Lawyers (2006-2023)
         - Employment Law - Management
         - Litigation - Labor and Employment

  • Washingtonian Magazine “Top Employment Lawyers” in the DC area

  • International Who’s Who of Management Labour and Employment Lawyers (2006-2019)

  • Maryland Super Lawyers (2007-2023)
         - Top 50 Women Maryland Super Lawyers (2017)
         - Top 25 Women Maryland Super Lawyers (2007)

  • Washington D.C. Super Lawyers (2007-2020)

  • "Top Attorneys," Bethesda Magazine ​(2019)
         - Employment - Employer

  • The Daily Record's Maryland’s Top 100 Women (2006)

  • AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rated

  • Chambers USA has described her “as a talented player in labor and employment law. She enjoys a fine reputation for her wide-ranging and successful representation of employers from various industries.” Chambers USA also noted that Hope “is praised for her ‘strategic and analytical approach.’ She is experienced in a broad range of labor and employment matters, but is particularly commended for her success in employment litigation defense.”

In The News
Recent Publications
Civic & Community Involvement

  • Past Chair of the Board of Directors of the American Employment Law Council (AELC) (2003-2017)

  • Past President of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers (2006)

  • Former member of the Governing Council of the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section (2002-2008)

  • Member Board of Directors, Strathmore Music Center (2011-present)

Speeches & Presentations

  • “Employment Law Day: Trump @ Work - Changes Affecting Employment Law,” Paley Rothman, November 2017

  • "Employment Law Day: Money Talks, Pay Inequality Walks - EEO1 and Gender Pay Equity," Paley Rothman, November 2016

  • Hope has been a speaker national, regional and local organizations and associations, including the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, Chambers of Commerce, the American Society of Association Executives, the American Law Council, the Society for Human Resource Management, the Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Association, the DC and Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants, Maryland’s Continuing Education Seminars for Lawyers. She has made presentations to U.S. District Judges in Maryland and DC. and at the Annual Conference for EEOC Officials.

  • Her presentations have covered a wide range of employment law issues, including EEO law, issues that keep corporate counsel awake at night, managing employers’ employment law processes and issues; strategic handling of EEOC charges, litigating discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wage and hour cases, handling discovery and obtaining summary judgment in employment law cases, enforcement and compliance issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act; harassment and other corporate investigations, addressing harassment, bias and diversity, and issues in CEO and executive employment contracts and separation agreement.

Representative Cases

  • Donald Kline v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., No. RDB-08-CV-900, 2009 WL 2246656 (D. Md. July 27, 2009) (District Court granted summary judgment on behalf of Home Depot on plaintiff’s American with Disabilities Act claims of failure of reasonable accommodation, constructive discharge and failure to re-hire based on disability)

  • Charles Frank v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. , 481 F.Supp.2d 439 (D. Md. 2007) (District Court granted summary judgment on behalf of defendant Home Depot where plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by res judicata and claim of defamation was barred by privilege)

  • Baron v. Schulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., 201 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 1999) (Fourth Circuit upheld summary judgment granted on behalf of defendant law firm in Americans with Disabilities Act case where plaintiff alleged discriminatory discharge, retaliatory discharge and abusive discharge claim)

  • Thomas v. Randolph Hills Nursing Ctr., 155 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 1998) (Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment obtained on behalf of defendant nursing home in age discrimination case)

  • Enand v. Atlis Systems, 23 F.3d 400 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 955 (1994) (Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment obtained on behalf of information systems company in age discrimination case)

  • California Bankers Ass’n v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974) (challenge to Bank Secrecy Act on behalf of bank customers, banks, bankers’ associations and other organizations)

  • E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F.Supp. 1264 (N.D. Il. 1986) (successful defense of the then largest nationwide pattern or practice of sex and race discrimination suit brought by the EEOC)

  • Forcade v. Knight, 416 F.Supp. 1025 (D.C. 1976) (successful challenge on behalf of reporters denied admittance to White House press briefings)

  • Washington Post Co. v. Kleindienst, 494 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (successful challenge in District Court to Bureau of Prison’s ban on press interviews with inmates)

  • American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Jennings, 366 F.Supp. 1041 (D.D.C. 1973) (successful challenge to Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 on behalf of organizations seeking to run political advertising)

  • Carlson v. Schlesinger, 364 F.Supp. 626 (D.D.C. 1973) (successful challenge to Air Force regulations unconstitutionally restricting right of petition)

  • McGlotten v. Connally, 338 F.Supp. 448 (D.D.C. 1972) (successful challenge to grant of tax benefits to organizations that exclude nonwhites as members)

  • A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 460 F.2d 854 (D.C.Cir. 1971) (successful constitutional challenge involving two appeals to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of Department of Interior Regulations setting numerical restrictions for gatherings in Lafayette Park and on the White House sidewalk)

Media Commentary