Discrimination

Georgia Woman’s Employment Discrimination Case Against State Board of Regents and Former Supervisor Dismissed as Untimely

April 23, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment discrimination case, there is a relatively short window for the filing of a complaint against the offending employer. If this requirement is not met, the plaintiff’s case will likely fail.

Thus, an important first step in holding an employer accountable under the law is to consult an attorney who can help you get started on your claim. An individual who is not represented by counsel is at a huge disadvantage in court, as it is almost guaranteed that the employer will be represented by legal counsel who is well-versed in the laws and procedures applicable in these types of cases.

Facts of the Case

In an employment discrimination case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, the plaintiff averred that she had been discriminated against by the defendants (a state board of regents and her former supervisor), on account of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the plaintiff, she relocated from one campus to another but continued to experience discrimination in the terms and conditions of her employment. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She received a right to sue notice on November 21, 2017. She then filed suit against the defendants in federal district court on February 20, 2018. Later, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, ending the plaintiff’s cause of action on July 29, 2019. Notably, the plaintiff was not represented by counsel at that time.

Federal District Court Decides Whether Georgia Woman’s ADA and FMLA Claims Survive Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment

April 15, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., provide valuable protections to workers who are disabled, become ill, or find themselves as caregiver for an ailing family member. However, there are limitations on the provisions of these laws, and not every Atlanta employment discrimination or retaliatory discharge case based on their alleged violation will be met with success.

As with other civil suits, the plaintiff has the burden of meeting certain elements of proof in order to prevail in his or her suit. Employers typically seek dismissal of the various claims filed against them if at all possible, and it is not unusual for a trial court to dismiss some (or even all) of a plaintiff’s claims prior to trial.

Facts of the Case

In a recent employment law case, the plaintiff was a woman who began working as a manager of a discount warehouse club owned by the defendant employer in March 2017. Between that time and the day that she was ultimately terminated in late 2018, several significant events occurred, including multiple “coachings” regarding the plaintiff’s performance of her job, a pregnancy, and a work-related injury. After being terminated for an alleged “inability to perform her job,” the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thereafter, in 2019, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court, asserting claims for a) retaliation, discriminatory discharge, and failure to accommodate in violation of the ADA and b) for interference with her rights under the FMLA.

Georgia Man Fails to Convince Federal Court of Appeals that He Was the Victim of Unlawful Race Discrimination

February 25, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Those who believe that they may have a valid Atlanta race discrimination lawsuit against a current, former, or potential employer have a limited time to take legal action. Failure to file the appropriate paperwork within the time allowed by law can result in a complete forfeiture of one’s legal rights.

Once the claim is filed, there are other requirements imposed upon the employee, including the burden of producing legally admissible evidence tending to show that he or she was the victim of unlawful discrimination due to his or her race or color. In turn, the employer is apt to present a different view of the case, one in which it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision towards the plaintiff.

At that point, it is likely that the employer will seek summary judgment, that is, a pre-trial order establishing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the motion is granted, the employee may then seek the review of the court of appeals. If the court of appeals holds differently than the trial court, the matter may be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Georgia Woman’s Age and Race Discrimination Lawsuit is Dismissed on Summary Judgment, Affirmed on Appeal

February 6, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In most Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuits, the employee and the employer disagree sharply as to why the employer made an adverse employment decision, such as terminating, not hiring, or not promoting the employee. The employee believes the decision was based on an unlawful discriminatory reason, such as his or her age or race, while the employer may offer legally legitimate reasons for its actions, arguing that another candidate was more qualified, or the employee had a history of misconduct in the workplace. The courts are charged with deciding, based on the evidence offered by the respective parties, which version of events is more credible.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was a white female who filed suit against the defendants, a county and the county’s school district, alleging that the school district had wrongfully refused to hire her as an assistant principal on account of her race and her age. The plaintiff had served as the dean of students at a charter school in the defendant county from 2013 until late 2014, when the school district abolished the plaintiff’s dean position and, in its place, created an assistant principal job. The plaintiff applied for the job of assistant principal, but she was not hired. Instead, a younger, African American woman was hired as assistant principal, and the plaintiff was transferred to a middle school art teacher job.

The school district filed a motion for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the defendant’s motion and entered summary judgment in its favor as to the plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as her age discrimination claims. The plaintiff sought appellate review of the district court’s decision.

Employment Discrimination Lawsuits in Georgia Must Be Properly Worded or Risk Dismissal

January 29, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The process of filing an Atlanta employment discrimination claim can be a complex endeavor. For those who are not familiar with the legal system, there are likely to be many questions. “Where do I file my claim? How long do I have to take legal action? What, specifically, do I need to say in my pleadings?” When a claim is not properly filed or does not contain the necessary allegations, the court is likely to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. When a case is dismissed, this usually means that the plaintiff’s case is “dead.” Unless an appellate court overturns the ruling, the plaintiff will not receive any compensation from the defendant, nor will the employer be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff to his or her position.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent employment discrimination lawsuit was an adjunct professor at the defendant college. He filed suit against the college and its board of trustees, alleging that the defendants had engaged in racially discriminatory hired practices by preferentially hiring Hispanic applicants for its physician assistant program in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The college filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that he had failed to state a claim. The plaintiff then filed several amended complaints, each of which essentially reiterated his allegations in the original complaint. Ultimately, the federal district dismissed the plaintiff’s case, and he appealed.

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.

Former Georgia Sheriff’s Department Employee’s Motion for Reconsideration Denied in Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

January 11, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employment discrimination lawsuits can be procedurally complicated. For example, in an Atlanta race discrimination case arising from an allegedly illegal termination, there may be multiple claims, amended complaints, and various motions to dismiss filed by the defendant(s). The trial court must sort out each of the issues in the case, as they develop. Sometimes, some of the plaintiff’s claims – and maybe even some of the defendants – may be dismissed from the litigation prior to trial.

Depending upon the procedural posture of a particular case, some of the court’s decisions may not be ripe for appeal until after the case is tried. Whether a ruling is subject to reconsideration by the trial court is sometimes another highly disputed topic.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent federal district case was a former sheriff’s department employee who was terminated from his employment in late 2014. He filed suit against the sheriff’s office, two cities, two counties, a former sheriff, and another individual, asserting claims for race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The sheriff and the other individual defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

Pro Se Plaintiff Has Her Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

December 27, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Atlanta employment discrimination claims are subject to many rules, each and every one of which must be followed regardless of whether the employee is represented by experienced legal counsel trained in these matters or whether the employee is acting pro se, meaning representing herself or himself. Although a court may grant a bit of latitude to a pro se litigant by, for example, granting a brief extension of time in which to file documents regarding the issues and legal arguments in a particular case, the general expectations are the same for those represented by counsel and those representing themselves. Consequently, most pro se plaintiffs are destined to fail, sooner or later.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unpublished federal case, the pro se plaintiff filed suit against the defendant employer in November 2017, attempting to assert claims of sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and wage and hour practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff originally filed her lawsuit in state court, but the matter was removed to federal district court by the defendant.

The defendant’s answer to the plaintiff’s complaint denied liability for her allegations and asserted some 30 affirmative defenses. Although the federal district court had a general preference of setting a trial date within a year of the filing of a complaint, the court opted to grant the pro se plaintiff additional time in which to prepare for trial and set the trial for June 2019. The trial court judge explained to the plaintiff the importance of complying with certain deadlines contained in the court’s scheduling order (such as the times for making initial disclosures, disclosing expert witnesses’ names and reports, and completing discovery). The plaintiff indicated that she understood the deadlines and that she would comply with them.

Federal Appeals Court Rules on Race and Age Discrimination Claim Relevant to Georgia Employees

November 20, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

It is unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment action against a worker (or would-be worker) based on matters such as age, sex, race, or disability. An employee who is aggrieved by such conduct should consult an Atlanta employment discrimination attorney about the possibility of filing an employment discrimination claim with the appropriate governmental agency (such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) or court.

Remedies that may be available in such cases include injunctive relief, reinstatement, lost wages, and other money damages. The plaintiff has the initial burden of proving discrimination in such cases. As the case progresses, the defendant employer may allege that it has a legitimate reason for its actions. The plaintiff must then show that this reason was “pretext” rather than a true, lawful reason for the conduct at issue.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unpublished federal appeals court case, the plaintiff was a 52-year-old African American woman who worked as a school secretary/registrar for the defendant school board for approximately two years. After her contract was not renewed and she was unable to find other work in the school district, the plaintiff filed suit in federal district court, alleging claims for racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–34 (ADEA); and retaliation in violation of Title VII, § 1981, and the ADEA.

Federal Appeals Court That Reviews Claims from Georgia and Other States Grants Partial Summary Judgment in Employment Discrimination Case Against Police Department

November 13, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment discrimination suit involving government officials as defendants, it is not unusual for defendants named in their individual capacity to seek dismissal of the claims against them based on qualified immunity. Although the doctrine of qualified immunity is complex, a court that grants dismissal of a claim based on qualified immunity is basically saying that a government official who performs a discretionary task in his or her official capacity should be shielded from suit. There are exceptions to qualified immunity, however. One of these involves situations in which the official violated a clearly established law (such as a constitutional right or a federal statute).

Facts of the Case

In a recent unpublished federal court case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which hears cases appealed from district courts in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida), the plaintiff was a former police officer who first joined the defendant city police department in 1997. He transferred to the defendant’s tactical unit in 2009; notably, the plaintiff’s application to transfer into the unit was initially denied but was granted after he filed a grievance with the personnel board. The plaintiff aspired to work in the unit’s K-9 department, but he was passed over, and white officers were given the positions when openings arose.

The defendant filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complaining of the defendant sergeant’s failure to recommend him for a K-9 vacancy in 2013. In 2015, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter. In the meantime, the plaintiff had been injured in a motorcycle accident that limited him to administrative duties, and he subsequently retired. In his complaint, he sought legal redress under both 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and Title VII. The federal district court partially granted and partially denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The sergeant sought review of the district court’s decision, particularly its rejection of his claim for qualified immunity.