Published on:

In a Georgia employment law case, a worker who has been fired or has voluntarily left his or her employment may make a claim for unemployment benefits. However, such a claim may be met with resistance by the workers’ former employer, especially if it was the employee, rather than the employer, who terminated the working relationship between the parties.

This is because, generally speaking, those who voluntarily quit a job are not entitled to receive unemployment benefits. However, it is worth noting that there are some important exceptions to this general rule.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a commercial driver for the defendant sanitation service. After being employed by the defendant for about two years, the plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident while performing his duties. The accident involved a fatality. The plaintiff was not at fault in the accident. Due to physical injuries he suffered in the crash, the plaintiff did not immediately return to work. He was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and told the defendant that he could no longer drive professionally due to trauma that he suffered in the accident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

While many Atlanta employment lawsuits involve claims made by a private individual against his or her corporate employer, not every case follows this model. In some suits, the defendant is a governmental entity for whom the plaintiff worked or aspired to work.

In such a suit, the person seeking to assert a legal remedy may be an employee of the defendant governmental entity, or he or she may be someone in a position of authority.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent Georgia Supreme Court case was a mayor who was officially removed from office by the defendant city in May 2017. The removal occurred as a result of a hearing, presided over by a municipal court judge, in which the defendant’s city council voted to remove the plaintiff from his position. The plaintiff first sought review of that decision by filing a direct appeal in superior court but later filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. For awhile, the plaintiff continued to work as mayor, receiving his usual salary and benefits, but he stopped working at some point while the case was pending.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In certain types of businesses, it is not unusual for an employee to be asked to sign a covenant not to compete against his or her employer, should he or she choose to terminate his or her employment in the future. An employee who chooses to violate such an agreement may find himself or herself the defendant in an Atlanta breach of contract action to enforce the terms of the employment agreement.

Of course, not every such agreement is enforceable in court. Typically, a covenant not to compete must be reasonable in scope and duration, issues that, ultimately, are up to the court to decide.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent state court case was a limited liability company that owned a barbershop in Atlanta. The defendant began working as a master barber for the plaintiff’s barbershop in 2015. At first, the defendant was classified as an independent contractor, but, after two of the plaintiff’s employees left to open competing businesses in close proximity to its barbershop, the defendant was asked to sign an employment contract. This agreement contained several restrictions on the defendant’s post-employment activities, should she choose to terminate her employment with the plaintiff.

Continue reading →

Published on:

There are several different issues that may arise in a Georgia wage and hour case. One of these issues is the question of whether a worker has been properly classified as an employee or as an independent contractor.

This is an important distinction because independent contractors are usually exempt from the requirements of federal law concerning matters like minimum wage and overtime.

Facts

The plaintiff in a recent case was a dancer who alleged that the defendant entertainment establishment owners had failed to pay her in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), codified at U.S.C. § 201 et seq. According to the plaintiff, the defendants misclassified her as an “independent contractor” when she was, in fact, an employee who was entitled to receive minimum wage under FLSA.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Having knowledgeable and assertive legal representation in an Atlanta employment discrimination case is crucial. Although the law allows those who choose to represent themselves the freedom to do so, this is almost never a good idea.

Unfortunately, a Georgia woman (who, ironically, worked for the court system against which she attempted to bring suit) found this out the hard way. Because she had named the wrong defendant in her lawsuit, her case was dismissed.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was an employee of a certain county juvenile court. Choosing to represent herself rather than hire an attorney, the employee filed suit in federal court against the defendant, the consolidated city-county government of the town and county in which the juvenile court where the plaintiff worked was located. In her complaint against the defendant, the plaintiff alleged that she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination and sought various legal remedies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 200e-17.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Under federal law, there are certain rules and regulations that govern the manner in which employees are paid. While some workers are exempt from these provisions, most are included.

Those whose employers have acted in violation of these or other laws concerning fair payment of wages may be able to recover money damages through an Atlanta wage and hour lawsuit. Because there is a limited time for taking legal action in such a situation, it is important to speak to a lawyer promptly if you think you have a potential wage and hour law case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were drivers and laborers employed by the defendant disposal services company. In a complaint filed in federal court, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had either underpaid them or had failed to pay them for overtime hours in violation of § 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant’s practices also affected other similarly situated workers employed. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, although their pay stubs purported to reflect both regular and overtime rates, the plaintiffs contended that these rates were intentionally manipulated by the defendant to make it appear that the plaintiffs were receiving overtime pay when, in fact, they were not.

Continue reading →