Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

“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.

Continue reading ›

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.

Continue reading ›

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.

Continue reading ›

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.

Continue reading ›

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.

Continue reading ›

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.

Last year, a few major U.S. Supreme Court rulings turned 50 years old. The first case to come to many minds probably is the landmark 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade. However, the name at the tips of employment lawyers’ tongues probably is the discrimination case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Recently, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose reach encompasses federal matters in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama,) issued a significant decision clarifying exactly how the McDonnell Douglas case’s precedent does — and does not — impact discrimination litigation today. If you have questions about employment discrimination, you need to consult a knowledgeable Atlanta employment discrimination lawyer who can provide you with information that is fully up to date.

The recent discrimination case, decided in December, involved L.T., an African-American woman and the superintendent of a juvenile detention center, and her employer, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. After one particularly problematic day at the center, the assistant secretary of detention services assembled a team to review staffing and personnel issues at L.T.’s facility. After the team completed that review, the assistant secretary fired L.T., despite the superintendent’s 16-year record devoid of negative performance reviews or discipline.

The superintendent sued for race and sex discrimination. A key part of her case was comparator evidence; namely, that two similarly situated white Juvenile Justice employees had faced similar problems but were treated very differently. The department immediately fired L.T.; the two white superintendents who similarly faced allegations of a lack of control and a failure to follow departmental policies “received only oral reprimands, were allowed to transfer to different facilities, and were granted multiple opportunities to comply with various recommendations for improvement.”

Continue reading ›