In an important new ruling on the issue of discrimination against breastfeeding employees, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s decision that a police department’s refusal to provide a breastfeeding officer with a satisfactory ballistic vest amounted to a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and in the process, it upheld a $161,000 damages award for the employee. Discrimination against breastfeeding employees is an emerging and evolving area of the law, and, if you think you have an issue related to breastfeeding discrimination, you should promptly reach out to a knowledgeable Georgia pregnancy discrimination lawyer. Continue reading →
A potentially significant case that began here in Georgia is working its way through the federal court system. The case involved an employee who was fired after she twice experienced certain pre-menopause menstruation-related incidents while at work. A ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals could clarify whether these types of discrimination cases require proof that the employer treated the plaintiff less favorably than other employees outside that gender group who had generally analogous health issues, or whether proof of an employer’s adverse action against an employee for an issue related to her menstruation necessarily amounts to direct discrimination based on sex. If you find yourself in a similar situation, an experienced Georgia sex discrimination attorney can help you assess your rights under the anti-discrimination laws. Continue reading →
Abraham Lincoln reputedly said that “he who represents himself has a fool for a client.” The central thrust of this statement is that cases in which a party represents herself almost always end poorly for that person. This is especially true for non-lawyers who represent themselves. The law, especially employment law, is full of specifics, details, and requirements that even an intelligent and knowledgeable non-lawyer couldn’t reasonably be expected to know. That’s why it is almost always the right move to retain experienced Georgia employment counsel to represent you in your discrimination case. Continue reading →
For employers, one of the challenges with which they must deal is creating and following a process for making new hire and promotion decisions. The need to appear impartial and fair may lead an employer to create a metric that is standardized and objective. The key, though, is that, once an employer creates such a system, it becomes important to follow that system or, if deviating from those results, to document a clear reason why. If your employer doesn’t do this, these facts may actually work to strengthen your Georgia employment discrimination case, according to a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. Continue reading →
As an employer, there are many human resources-related tasks with which you must concern yourself. Some of these might seem like less significant items, but even these “small” details can have great importance in certain situations. One example is maintaining updated, detailed, and complete job descriptions. While this might seem like a relatively minor thing, it was the key to success for one Ohio employer in a disability discrimination case one of its employees launched recently.
In a Title VII discrimination case, there are several hurdles in front of a plaintiff. The law requires that the employee show that she suffered discrimination and that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons offered by the employer were really just pretexts for discrimination. In the case of one middle Tennessee professor, her employer was able to persuade the court that the professor’s case came up short in multiple areas required by the law.
Late last summer, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of an employer after an employment candidate accused the company of race discrimination by virtue of its enforcement of its employee grooming policies. This so-called “dreadlock decision” has led to many discussions and commentaries since its release, both about what “race” means as well as the degree of control employers should have over their employees’ appearance. For employers and employees in Georgia, it is useful to take note of exactly how far the law allows an employer to go in mandating an employee’s choice of hairstyle.
One of the interesting byproducts of living in the 21st-century information age is the speed at which information transmits. In this age of smartphones, the world-wide web, and social media, news really does travel fast. Whether you are an LGBT person in the workforce or you’re an employer, chances are you either have read or will soon be reading about the April 4 Title VII decision issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc. You’ll likely see headlines trumpeting that the decision has “decided” the issue of Title VII and whether or not it bars sexual orientation discrimination. While that’s true in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, if you’re working or doing business in Georgia, the reality is a bit different.
Sometimes the alleged acts of discrimination that go on within a workplace may be extensive and extreme. Even when that level of alleged racism is going on at work, it is still important to follow all of the necessary steps to pursue your case carefully and thoroughly to avoid procedural issues that might trip up your action. Three workers at a Georgia farm each cleared important hurdles in their Title VII race discrimination lawsuits against their employer when a federal judge recently denied the employer’s request (in each case) to grant it summary judgment on the employees’ Title VII claims.
In the latest ruling of what has become a nationally watched case, an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has upheld a trial court’s decision to throw out a Georgia security guard’s Title VII claim based upon her sexual orientation. The ruling is worth noting by Georgia employers and employees for a number of reasons. First, the decision announced the panel’s refusal to expand the parameters of Title VII to include an explicit prohibition against employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. Second, the panel re-affirmed the avenue available to some employees in this security guard’s position: pursuing a claim of discrimination based upon failure to conform to gender stereotypes.