Employment Discrimination

What Does (and Does Not) Make a Workplace Complaint a ‘Protected Activity’ Under Title VII Retaliation Law

September 10, 2025 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Here in Georgia, workers who experience discrimination based on specific statutorily defined characteristics, like, for example, age and sexual orientation, are protected by federal law. If you are a worker who has experienced this kind of discrimination at work (or are an employer facing such an allegation), it pays to retain an experienced Atlanta employment discrimination lawyer to handle your case. The law requires a worker to clear certain legal hurdles if his case is to defeat employer motions (like a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment). A skilled advocate can be instrumental in ensuring that your pleadings are in order, whether you are the worker or the employer.

A recent workplace discrimination case from southwest Georgia illustrates the risks that a worker assumes when proceeding without counsel.

B.H., the employee, worked as a career development coordinator at a public university in Albany, Georgia. The coordinator was 40 years old, gay, and Black, and his “protected characteristics” allegedly placed a discriminatory target on him.

Managing the ‘McDonnell Douglas Framework’ in Your FMLA Retaliation or Federal Discrimination Lawsuit

June 23, 2025 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Succeeding in advancing a Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation or interference claim (or defending against such an allegation) requires many things. It demands knowing all of the elements you must prove for success, and what the law says you need to satisfy those elements. A knowledgeable and experienced Atlanta FMLA interference lawyer can be essential to achieving this successful outcome.

A recent race discrimination and FMLA interference lawsuit illustrates some of the similarities between those two federal claims, including when it comes to the proof required to win.

The employee who sued, G.L., held a managerial position in the City of Atlanta’s agency responsible for providing drinking water and managing wastewater. While the manager was out on FMLA leave, an emergency occurred when one of the agency’s plants ran out of fluoride water treatment. Although an investigation eventually revealed that a higher-ranking employee (the deputy commissioner) knew about the shortage for “several days” before G.L. found out, the employer nevertheless demoted the manager after the shortage incident.

A New U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Addresses the Litigation of Federal ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Cases Under Title VII

June 10, 2025 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

“Reverse discrimination” is an informal phrase that refers to instances of discrimination where the target of discrimination was not a member of a historical minority group (like, for example, women, African Americans, and gays/lesbians) but rather a traditional majority group (like men, white people, and heterosexuals). Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the notion that members of majority groups should have a higher burden of proof placed on them as compared to members of minority groups. The high court’s decision reflects that federal discrimination law is evolving and will continue to change. The best way to equip yourself for success in a discrimination lawsuit is to seek out and retain an Atlanta discrimination lawyer who is deeply versed in, and entirely up to date on, all aspects of Title VII law.

The employee in the Supreme Court case, M.A., worked for an Ohio governmental agency that oversaw juvenile corrections in the state. When the agency created a new management role, she applied for it, but the role went to a different woman. Shortly thereafter, the agency demoted her to a secretarial job and chose a man to fill her vacant position.

She sued the agency for sexual orientation discrimination under federal law (Title VII). What made her case unusual was that she was heterosexual, and the successful candidates — the man who assumed the administrator role and the new manager — were gay and lesbian.

The Impact of President Trump’s New Gender Identity Executive Order on Private Employers in Georgia

February 21, 2025 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

President Donald Trump signed a sweeping array of executive orders on the first day of his second term in office. One that has received much of the spotlight was Executive Order (EO) Number 14168, entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The signing of EO 14168 is a clear marker that the rules surrounding workplace gender identity discrimination are changing for some employers and employees but remain the same in most private workplaces. If you have questions about your (or your employer’s) compliance, make sure to consult an experienced Atlanta gender identity discrimination lawyer to get the answers you need.

One of the key areas receiving attention has been the impact of EO 14168 on trans rights. The order functionally eliminates all recognition of gender identity within the federal government. Under the order, a person is identified by their biological sex assigned at birth, regardless of the gender with which they identify.

This order likely has inspired many questions. One of these is how much the responsibilities of private employers and the rights of private employees in Georgia will change now that the new EO is in effect.

What Will (and Won’t) Demonstrate Pretext in a Title VII Employment Discrimination Case

October 17, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In employment discrimination cases, most employers will present some sort of facially valid basis for their actions. The crux of many cases, as a result, can come down to the worker’s ability to show that the employer’s stated reason was just a pretext for discrimination. Employees who fail to do this often find themselves on the losing end of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Whether you are the worker or the employer, it is vitally important to understand what is (and is not) a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment action, and what is (and is not) a valid method for establishing pretext. For answers to these questions and more, be sure to get reliable answers by consulting an experienced Atlanta race discrimination lawyer.

A recent race discrimination case taking place to our south shows how employees can go astray when trying to demonstrate pretext.

The employee, L.B. was an assistant chef with a steak-and-seafood restaurant located just west of Augusta. A new general manager (hired shortly after L.B.) allegedly treated the chef, an African American woman, less favorably than white coworkers. This included refusing to promote the chef to “lead chef” or providing training opportunities while training white workers and hiring new white workers to staff the lead chef position, according to the woman’s lawsuit.

What the Law Says About Employees Returning to Work After Their 12 Weeks of FMLA Leave Has Expired

September 30, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A worker experiencing health difficulties presents challenges for the employee… and her employer. Employers should proceed carefully, ensuring that any potentially adverse actions they take do not run afoul of federal law. A misstep in this regard could harm not just the worker but also the employer’s business if it exposes the employer to liability for violations of federal anti-discrimination law or the Family and Medical Leave Act. With that in mind, if you are an employer or an employee facing this set of circumstances, it is wise to contact a knowledgeable Atlanta employment lawyer to discuss your rights and obligations.

Sometimes, an employer’s course of action (as laid out in an unfavorable court opinion) can represent a clear case of “what not to do.” A recent FMLA interference and disability discrimination lawsuit in Macon makes for a pertinent example.

The employee, D.L. was an administrative coordinator for a Middle Georgia family services non-profit. The coordinator, who had significant arthritis, took a period of leave following her Sept. 2, 2020, neck surgery. After a Nov. 19 appointment revealed a need for additional surgery, the doctor declared the woman out indefinitely. Two weeks later, the doctor said the coordinator could return to work on Dec. 8, provided she did not do any pushing, pulling, or lifting over 10 pounds.

The Importance of Proper Documentation — Including Medical Certification — in the FMLA Leave Process

August 16, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Whether you are a worker who needs to take time off from work or an employer, it is well worth your while to become familiar with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and its rights and obligations. The FMLA offers essential rights to certain employees, but those rights are lost if the worker does not follow the proper procedures. Employers who fail to respond appropriately after a worker puts them on notice that an absence may be covered by the FMLA can face serious consequences. Whichever side you are on, it pays to contact a knowledgeable Atlanta FMLA leave lawyer and get the complete and accurate information you need.

As noted above, thorough documentation is key – whether that is proof of your compliance with the rules or the other side’s failure to do so. The recent FMLA interference case of an employee fired three days after returning from leave highlights this truth.

The employee, G.M., was one of two engineering assistants at a petroleum company. In August 2018, the assistant emailed her boss, stating that “some personal issues have come about at home that require my immediate attention so I will not be in today and I will need to take some time off for the next several weeks as well.” The assistant estimated that she would be out roughly 3-4 weeks.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Revives a White Worker’s Race Discrimination Case Following Her Termination by a Black Manager

March 29, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

When people hear the word “discrimination,” they may often associate it with historically marginalized groups, like people of color, women, LGBT+ people, and so forth. The law, however, is broader than that. Federal anti-discrimination statutes protect people who encounter discrimination based on protected characteristics, regardless of whether or not they were members of a historical minority/disadvantaged group. Even if you’re male, White, American, or “straight,” you still have the possibility of pursuing – and winning – a federal discrimination lawsuit. So, if you’ve endured this sort of harm, don’t hesitate to contact an experienced Atlanta employment discrimination lawyer to discuss your legal options.

A federal race discrimination case that originated in neighboring Alabama exemplifies this point. T.P., a White woman, worked for a cabinet manufacturer inspecting and repairing cabinets. As workloads increased, so did employee hours. Several employees complained about the long hours, including T.P. and two of her Black colleagues. Allegedly, the operations manager, who also was Black, fired T.P. for complaining but issued no discipline to the two Black workers who complained. According to the employer, T.P. was fired for “insubordination.”

That treatment served as the basis for T.P.’s federal race discrimination lawsuit under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. In addition to the complaining incident, T.P. had other alleged evidence of racially disparate treatment. She provided the court with a set of the employer’s disciplinary records, which included 12 circumstances where employees of color were cited for insubordination but were not fired. At least three of those 12 were subordinates of the same operations manager who fired T.P.

The Vital Importance of a Motive ‘Rooted in Discrimination’ to a Workers’ Georgia Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

March 22, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Sometimes, a degree of employer flexibility may be an important ingredient in that employer avoiding employment litigation and potential civil liability. However, as a recent disability discrimination case originating in Savannah highlights, the mere fact that an employer behaved in a way that seems excessively strict, harsh, or severe, doesn’t necessarily mean the employer broke the law. Even if the employer fired a worker based on motivations that were not “prudent or fair” — or had no reason at all for the termination — that firing is permissible as long as it “was not rooted in discrimination” or some other basis forbidden by law. Whether you’re an employer defending against a disability discrimination lawsuit or a worker harmed by illegal discrimination, an experienced Atlanta disability discrimination lawyer can be crucial in protecting your rights and interests.

The worker in the Savannah case was a crane operator for the State of Georgia’s ports authority. He also was an Army veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of his time in combat.

In the summer of 2018, the operator requested 12 weeks of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to undergo “intensive therapy” for PTSD. As the 12 weeks neared their end, the operator’s doctor recommended 12 more weeks of leave, and the employer approved the extension. Near the end of the second 12-week period, the operator requested a transfer to a different work area. HR informed the operator that he needed to submit a signed letter that (1) stated he could safely return to work and (2) listed the disability accommodation (transfer) he sought.

How Identifying ‘Similarly Situated’ Coworkers May Be Crucial to a Georgia Employee’s Discrimination Lawsuit

March 11, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Whether you’re an employee who’s endured discrimination or an employer facing a discrimination claim, it is important to understand how the employment discrimination litigation process works. An employee’s success is predicated upon clearing a series of evidentiary hurdles. For employers, success may lie in persuading the court that any one of those components was lacking. Whichever side you’re on, an experienced Atlanta employment discrimination lawyer can help you pursue your case in the most effective way possible.

As we noted last month, workers who allege employment discrimination may prove their cases either by presenting a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence or by satisfying the elements of the test created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1973 case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green. A recent federal race discrimination case from here in Atlanta shows the McDonnell Douglas procedure at work, and how a single evidentiary flaw can doom a worker’s case.

The employee was a sales representative for an analytic and diagnostic lab. After two years, the lab fired the representative. It said she had underperformed. She said it was race and gender discrimination.