Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. But what happens when an employee claims that a workplace requirement conflicts with religious beliefs, yet the evidence does not establish an actual conflict?

A new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addresses that question and provides useful guidance for employers, employees, and employment litigators.

On October 20, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an employer in Holland v. 3M Company, No. 25-13734, concluding that the employee failed to establish that her religious beliefs actually conflicted with the company’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

In a significant decision affecting employers, retirement-plan fiduciaries, and employees throughout Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has overturned more than 40 years of precedent governing lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On October 13, 2026, the full Eleventh Circuit ruled that employees bringing statutory ERISA claims, including claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, are not required by ERISA itself to exhaust their retirement plan’s internal administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit.

The decision, Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corporation of America, Inc., No. 24-10084 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2026) (en banc), reverses a longstanding procedural requirement that had distinguished the Eleventh Circuit from most other federal appellate courts. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Employers have long used the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as the starting point when an employee requests extended medical leave. A new lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Florida highlights an increasingly important limitation on that approach: when pregnancy or childbirth is involved, an employee who is not eligible for FMLA leave may nevertheless be entitled to leave under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”).

On September 30, 2026, the EEOC announced a lawsuit against Call 4 Health, a medical call center in Delray Beach, Florida. The action, EEOC v. Call 4 Health, Inc., No. 9:26-cv-81333, was filed in the Southern District of Florida, within the Eleventh Circuit. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated. EEOC

What Happened?

A new disability-discrimination settlement from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Atlanta District provides a useful reminder that an employer’s ADA compliance system is only as effective as the supervisors who receive accommodation requests.

On September 23, 2026, the EEOC announced that Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain, agreed to pay $80,000 and implement additional remedial measures to resolve an ADA lawsuit involving a temporary employee at its Forest Park, Georgia logistics facility. The case, EEOC v. Exel Inc., Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01720-ELR-CCB, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia earlier this year. See https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/international-logistics-company-exel-pay-80000-settle-eeoc-disability-lawsuit.

What Happened?

Employees frequently complain to management about “harassment,” unfair treatment, bullying, or a hostile work environment. But a new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit highlights an important distinction under Title VII: complaining about workplace mistreatment is not necessarily protected activity unless the employee communicates—expressly or implicitly—that the treatment involves unlawful discrimination.

In Lamb v. JG Management Services, Inc., No. 25-12445 (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former employee of an Atlanta-area employer. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/25-12445/25-12445-2026-09-16.html. The decision is unpublished, but because the underlying case arose in the Northern District of Georgia and applies established Eleventh Circuit precedent, it offers a timely practical lesson for both employees and employers.

What Happened?

A newly filed federal lawsuit against Amazon puts a recurring workplace problem under the spotlight: what happens when an employer’s ordinary attendance and productivity rules collide with an employee’s need for pregnancy-related accommodations?

On September 8, 2026, four former Amazon warehouse employees filed a proposed nationwide class action in federal court in Brooklyn alleging violations of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). See .https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/amazon-accused-lawsuit-of-systematic-pregnancy-discrimination-2026-09-08/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. The plaintiffs allege that Amazon failed to adequately accommodate pregnancy-related limitations and, in some instances, penalized employees under attendance or productivity policies for time associated with pregnancy-related medical needs. Amazon denies the allegations and has stated that more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests were approved during the prior year. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated.

The lawsuit is noteworthy because it illustrates how PWFA claims may arise even when an employer has a formal accommodation program—and why employers should examine how accommodations interact with automated or generally applicable attendance policies.

A recent U.S. Department of Labor investigation in Georgia provides a useful reminder that employers generally cannot require employees to attend job-related meetings, orientation, or training and then leave that time off the payroll.

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Labor announced that it had recovered $113,199 in back wages following an investigation of Premier Health Consultants LLC, which operated as St. Joseph Candler Urgent Care in Richmond Hill, Georgia. See USDOL, News Release, “US Department of Labor finds urgent care employer failed to pay over $113K in owed wages to workers for required orientation, meetings, training”, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20260810 (August 10, 2026).  According to the Department’s Wage and Hour Division, the employer failed to properly compensate employees for required orientation, meetings, training, and other work performed off the clock. The Department also found that the employer suspended an employee who questioned the company’s pay practices.

The investigation highlights two separate—but related—Fair Labor Standards Act risks: failing to capture all compensable working time and retaliating against employees who raise wage concerns.