Employment Law

Schoolteacher’s Claim Brought Pursuant to the Georgia Whistleblower Act Dismissed as Untimely

April 9, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

When an employee, former employee, or potential employee seeks to assert an Atlanta employment law claim, he or she must do so in a timely fashion. The exact time for the filing of a claim is dependent upon both the applicable law and the factual circumstances at hand.

For instance, in a “whistleblower” suit filed under Georgia state law, a formal complaint must be filed within one year of the date that the plaintiff discovered the alleged retaliation (but no longer than three years after the retaliatory action). Other factors may come into play as well, but this one-year limitations period will control in most cases.

If the plaintiff in a potential state law whistleblower suit does not take the appropriate legal action in a timely fashion, it is likely that his or her case will be dismissed. In such a situation, he or she may have no legal remedy, despite the employer’s retaliatory conduct.

Georgia Appeals Court Agrees that Termination of Tennis Manager Accused of Sexual Abuse of Teen Was Not Unlawful

March 5, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An Atlanta wrongful termination lawsuit can arise from several different situations. Among these are cases in which someone is fired because of his or her gender, sex, or race, even if some other, superficial reason is alleged by the employer. Terminations based on a worker’s pregnancy or disability can also trigger a wrongful discharge case, as can the firing of someone who has been hurt on the job or been absent for jury duty. There are some situations, however, in which a termination – though alleged to be wrongful by the discharged worker – is upheld as lawful by the court system.

This can happen when an employer has a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for letting a worker go. A case appealed to the intermediate state appeals court recently explored whether an accusation of sexual misconduct might fall under this category, even though there had not yet been a conviction concerning the allegations.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate case, the plaintiff was a man who worked as a tennis manager for the defendant county. In April 2018, however, the plaintiff was the target of a lawsuit in which it was asserted that he had sexually abused a teenage girl at the defendant’s tennis facilities. Although the plaintiff denied the allegations, the defendant placed him on paid administrative leave for a period of about four months. Thereafter, the plaintiff was moved to “unpaid suspension” for another four months. Thereafter, he was terminated; as grounds, the defendant stated that the plaintiff’s excessive absences had resulted in his termination.
Continue reading ›

Georgia Court of Appeals Addresses Injunctive Relief in Dispute Between Former Employee and Employer Regarding Restrictive Covenants

March 16, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The validity of a covenant not to compete or other restriction in an employment agreement can be the focus of an Atlanta employment lawsuit. Typically, the employee urges the court to find that the agreement was not valid for a particular reason, such as being overly broad in its terms.

The employer, by contrast, tends to advocate for a finding that the employee is bound by the terms of the agreement, regardless of their scope. As in most disputes between employees and employers, the issue will likely be decided by a state or federal court judge if the parties are unable to resolve the matter between themselves.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who began working for the defendant asset management firm in 2008. At the time that he was hired, the plaintiff signed an employment agreement. In 2010, the plaintiff signed a new employment agreement, which superseded the 2008 agreement. Several restrictive covenants were contained in the 2010 agreement, including a non-compete clause, a prohibition on soliciting or hiring the defendant’s current or former employees, and a prohibition on soliciting certain entities who had done business with the defendant.

Former Employee Compelled to Answer Discovery Requests in Employment Law Case Filed in Federal Court Sitting in Georgia

March 10, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment case, both the plaintiff and the defendant have certain responsibilities. One of the plaintiff’s responsibilities is to answer, as fully, thoroughly, and honestly as possible, any legitimate requests for discovery promulgated by the defendant. This typically includes the names of potential witnesses, a description of the damages claimed by the plaintiff, and factual information such as the plaintiff’s employment history.

While defendant employers do sometimes ask for more information than they are entitled to, it is the court’s job to “reign them in,” so to speak, if and when the plaintiff files an objection. If an objection is not timely made, the plaintiff will likely be compelled to answer the requests, even if they are arguably overbroad. Lawsuits in federal court are placed on a fairly rigid pre-trial discovery deadline, and failure to provide appropriate responses within the time ordered by the court can, ultimately, cause the plaintiff’s case to be dismissed and his or her legal rights to be forfeited.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, the plaintiff was a former employee of the defendant city. After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to assert certain employment law claims, the defendant served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the plaintiff. The plaintiff allegedly failed to answer these discovery requests in a timely and/or thorough manner despite multiple requests by the defendants that she do so, and the defendants filed a motion to compel. The motion was withdrawn, and an amended scheduling order was entering giving the plaintiff additional time in which to respond. After the new deadline had come and went, the defendant was granted permission to refile its motion to compel.

Georgia Supreme Court Holds That Punitive Damages Are Potentially Available in Abusive Litigation Lawsuit Stemming from Employee’s Firing

February 20, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

As the saying goes, “There are two sides to a story.” Generally speaking, this is true. However, in an Atlanta wrongful termination case, there may be only one truth, and “the other side of the story” may simply be the opposing party’s attempt to avoid liability.

While the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit has the burden of proving certain things in order to recover money damages or other relief, the opposing party also has certain responsibilities – including defending the case in a manner consistent with the applicable laws, rules, and regulations. When a defendant refuses to play by the rules, causing his or her opponent to waste time, money, and resources in pursuing his or her legal remedies, there can be serious repercussions, including having to pay the other litigant’s attorney fees and costs and, sometimes, punitive damages.

Facts of the Case

In a wrongful termination case recently considered on appeal by the Supreme Court of Georgia, the plaintiff was a man who was terminated from his job in 2012. He filed suit against his former employer, alleging that the employer had breached a severance agreement and other provisions in his contract of employment. While the litigation was pending, the employer’s business was bought by another company, who was then substituted as a corporate successor-in-interest. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that there was no basis for the employer withholding payment to him. The plaintiff was later awarded attorney fees and litigation expenses, with the trial court holding the employer and its successor jointly and severally liable.

Federal Employment Discrimination Claim Falls Due to Lack of Proof of Different Treatment to Similarly Situated Employee

January 22, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

To prove an Atlanta employment discrimination claim, the plaintiff must do more than simply allege that he or she was treated unfairly due to his or her age, race, gender, or other protected status. Rather, there must be competent evidence to show that the plaintiff suffered adverse treatment but a similarly situated employee who was not part of the protected class that included the plaintiff was treated differently. Without this important evidence, the plaintiff’s case will most likely be dismissed before trial.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent federal court case was an African-American man who was terminated from his job as a patient care technician at the defendant hospital after a brief physical altercation with a psychiatric patient. According to the defendant, the reason for the termination was that the plaintiff had violated the defendant’s policy against inappropriate behavior toward, or discourteous treatment of, a patient. In the defendant’s view, the plaintiff “went beyond what [was] appropriate during the altercation and was rightfully terminated. The plaintiff maintained, however, that he had been the victim of unlawful employment discrimination on account of his race.

The federal district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, agreeing that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) insomuch as he failed to demonstrate a situation in which the defendant had treated a similarly situated employee outside of the plaintiff’s protected class in a more favorable manner. The district court agreed with the defendant and granted its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.

Eleventh Circuit Decision in Retaliation Case Could Affect Georgia Employees

December 23, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In order to establish liability in an Atlanta wrongful termination case based on retaliation, the employee must be able to show that he or she engaged in protected activity, that he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal relationship between the protected activity and the adverse action.

In a recent case, a public employee alleged that he had been fired for making statements that were protected by the First Amendment. The city that previously employed the plaintiff in that case disagreed, however, asserting that the statements in questions were made in the employee’s professional – not personal – capacity. While there are some situations in which an employee’s termination for speech made during the course of his or her employee might be considered unlawful, both the district court and the appellate court agreed that such was not the case.

Factual Allegations

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the same circuit that hears appeals from federal district courts in Georgia) recently decided a case involving allegations that a city employee (a former fire chief) had been retaliated against after he attempted to enforce fire safety rules at an historic building owned by persons with political connections to city government. In the suit, the plaintiff sought relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as a state whistleblower statute. The plaintiff initially filed his lawsuit in state court, but it was removed to federal court by the defendant city.

Dismissal of Pro Se Litigant’s Employment Law Case Provides Lesson to Georgia Residents on the Perils of Self-Representation

December 9, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The need for quality legal representation when dealing with matters such as an Atlanta employment discrimination case cannot be overstated. While a plaintiff does, technically, have the right to self-representation, this is never a good idea.

The same rules, laws, and procedures apply to those representing themselves as apply to professionally trained and highly skilled legal advocates who earn their living in the courtroom. Attorneys spend years learning the law and must take a rigorous bar examination in order to be licensed to represent others in legal matters. The law, including state and federal statutes regarding employment law, is ever evolving, and it can be challenging to keep up with the latest developments even for experienced counsel. Someone who is not professionally educated in the law is at a serious disadvantage.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent federal appellate case was a woman who filed suit against the defendant highway patrol department and her former supervisor, asserting claims for civil rights violations and employment discrimination during events that occurred in 2005 and/or 2006. The trial court dismissed the woman’s complaint, holding that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations, res judicata (two previous lawsuits concerning the same conduct had previously been dismissed), and sovereign immunity. The plaintiff sought review from the court of appeals.

Georgia Woman Must Arbitrate Age and Disability Claims, According to Federal Court

November 7, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employees who believe that they have been discriminated against due to age by a current, former, or potential employer may assume that they will eventually have their day in court if they file an Atlanta age discrimination claim.

While the United States Constitution does guarantee the right to a jury trial in some situations, the right to have a jury determine the issues in a civil case is not universal. For one thing, an employee many be asked to forfeit his or her right to a jury trial as a condition of employment.

If the worker signs an arbitration agreement prior to going to work for a certain employer, it is highly likely that any disputes between the parties will eventually be settled through arbitration rather than litigation.

Summary Judgment Granted to Employer in Georgia Man’s Retaliatory Discharge Suit

October 30, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Last week, we told you about a Georgia retaliatory discharge claim. A woman was allegedly fired in response to her husband (who worked for the same employer) speaking out against workplace discrimination of a job applicant. As that case explained, the husband, too, had filed a claim against the employer, attempting to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The outcome of the wife’s case hinged on her husband’s case, insomuch as he was the primary actor against whom the alleged retaliation was directed.

Facts of the Case

In the husband’s companion case, he alleged that he was the vice president of sales and marketing of the defendant company in 2017 when an advertising manager resigned. A woman who worked for a local media group expressed interest in the job. Ultimately, she met with the plaintiff and submitted a resume to his wife, who worked in human resources. Unfortunately, the woman’s appearance (she was allegedly wearing tight, rather revealing clothing during the meeting) became a quick topic of discussion in the workplace. After a co-worker called the woman “a whore” and suggested that management would never allow a “bombshell like that” to work there, the plaintiff insisted that discrimination based on the woman’s appearance would be unlawful. (In opposition to the version of events presented by the plaintiff, the defendant company offered testimony by other employees who testified that they had been embarrassed by the plaintiff’s comments about the “well endowed” and “very, very, very well built” job applicant.)

Ultimately, the plaintiff and his wife were both terminated from their employment, and the plaintiff was issued a notice of suit rights by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.