Employment Law Cases

How Your Georgia Employer’s Excessive FMLA Documentation Demands Could Give Rise to a Claim of Interference

April 29, 2022 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employers may engage in a variety of improper actions when it comes to your requesting, using, or returning from leave to which you are entitled under the Family and Medical Leave Act. This misconduct can range from erecting onerous and unnecessary documentation requirements to counting your FMLA leave against for purposes of punitive “occurrence-based” attendance policies, just to name two. If you’ve encountered an employer making things needlessly difficult or otherwise punishing you for seeking or using FMLA leave, that potentially counts as interference, which is against the law. An experienced FMLA interference lawyer can help you assess how best to proceed based on the facts of your situation.

That issue of FMLA interference came up once again in a recent case from the federal courts. The employee, J.P., worked at a paper mill that had an occurrence-based attendance policy.

From December 2017 to August 2018, J.P. took three periods of FMLA leave. That last period ended on August 5. On August 6, J.P. returned to work. The next day, however, an operations manager told him to leave and to return with a “medical release” from his physician. J.P. did as instructed and, as a result, the employer counted his leaving work early on August 7 as a separate and additional occurrence.

What You Can Do If You’ve Lost Your Job in Georgia Because You Spoke Out Against Someone’s Else Acts of Sexual Harassment

November 30, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

No one should, as a worker, have to choose between their job and speaking out when they see discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace. Too many times, though, speaking out does lead to workplace punishment. When that happens to you, it is possible that your employer has engaged in illegal retaliation, so you should get in touch with a knowledgeable Atlanta employment lawyer to learn more about the legal options that may exist for you.

P.P. alleged in her Title VII case that that was exactly what happened to her. She worked as a supervisory employee for a burger restaurant in Atlanta where the owner-franchisee was the higher ranking person and the general manager was second in command.

One day in November 2018, the supervisor allegedly saw the general manager grope a male worker, but P.P. didn’t confront the manager. When the owner learned about the incident elsewhere, she began her own investigation during which she interviewed P.P. The supervisor told the owner what she saw and offered to provide a written statement.

Federal District Court in Georgia Rules that Employee’s Discrimination Lawsuit Should Be Stayed Pending Arbitration

June 25, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It is important to note, however, that not every would-be litigant will have his or her day in court. While the right to have the issues considered by a jury of one’s peers is non-negotiable in a criminal matter, the same is not necessarily true in a civil case.

In a civil matter such as an Atlanta employment discrimination case, there may be the possibility that the matter will be submitted for arbitration rather than proceeding via the traditional litigation process. This is because an increasing number of employers are requiring employees to sign agreements to arbitrate as a condition of employment.

Generally speaking, employers prefer arbitration over litigation because they believe that the attorney fees and legal costs will ultimately be lower and the outcome is more likely to be pro-employer than if the case is heard by a jury. Of course, each case must stand on its own merits, regardless of whether it is litigated, arbitrated, or resolved in some other manner.

Federal Employment Discrimination and Hostile Workplace Lawsuit Provides Guidance for Would-be Georgia Litigants

June 11, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Filing a claim for employment discrimination is not a particularly difficult process, so long as the basic rules for form and timeliness are observed. Winning an employment discrimination lawsuit based on such a claim is a very different matter, however.

Simply believing that one has been the victim of unlawful actions in the workplace is not enough to prevail on a discrimination claim in a court of law. Rather, there must be competent, credible evident that will support each and every element of the plaintiff’s case.

In fact, a case will probably not even be submitted for a jury’s consideration unless there are genuine issues of material fact that, if resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, would entitle him or her to a legal remedy such as money damages or injunctive relief. Thus, it is very important that a would-be litigant in an Atlanta employment discrimination case seek the assistance of qualified legal counsel before going forward.

Georgia Man’s Whistleblower Suit Asserting Unlawful Retaliation Dismissed by Federal District Court

June 5, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Under federal law, persons and companies who defraud the government can be held liable in a court of law for their wrongdoing. Not every false claim filed against a governmental entity will subject the filer to liability, however, as there are certain requirements that must be shown before the applicable statute will be enforced.

An important component of the federal law in question concerns the filing of a qui tam action. Under this provision, an individual, private person can file suit against an allegedly fraudulent filer on behalf of the government. If the suit is ultimately successful, it is possible that both the government and the private person may be awarded monetary compensation.

Additionally, there are provisions in place to protect a private person who files a qui tam action on the government’s behalf. Such “whistleblowers” may not be lawfully discharged on account of their actions in filing on behalf of the government to recoup monies lost due to fraudulent claims. Of course, a person with an Atlanta whistleblower protection claim may still be terminated for other, non-discriminatory reasons.

Federal Age Discrimination Claim Against Georgia Governmental Entity Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

May 28, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Just as in other types of civil cases, an Atlanta age discrimination lawsuit is subject to dismissal if the court in which it is filed lacks subject matter jurisdiction. When a court lacks this type of jurisdiction, it does not have the authority to render a binding decision in the case, and, thus, it must dismiss any claims over which it has no jurisdiction.

Usually, matters of jurisdiction are dealt with fairly early in the litigation process. This is typically done through a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Rule 12(b)(6).

Facts of the Case

In a recent age discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff was a 72-year-old man who applied for work as a facilities maintenance/construction manager with the defendant governmental agency in 2018. The defendant did not extend an offer of employment to the plaintiff, despite him having more than 40 years of experience in construction project management. Rather, the defendant chose to hire a younger, less-experienced candidate for the job. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the defendant had unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Georgians Who Seek Redress for Employment-Related Retaliation Must Show Appropriate Connections to Alleged Wrongdoing

May 21, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment retaliation case, the plaintiff must show a certain kind of connection to the defendant – and to the violation of the law that allegedly occurred – in order to move forward with his or her case. Sometimes, this is an easy and obvious step of the litigation process.

Other times, the battle is more difficult. Unless the plaintiff can make this necessary connection, his or her case is likely to fail.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiffs were family members of a woman who worked for the defendant bank during the year 2008. The woman was employed as a personal assistant to the bank’s president and CEO during that time. After she was fired, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the president/CEO had sexually harassed her and then retaliated against her for complaining about the harassment. The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant bank was that it had taken adverse action against them in retaliation for the former employee’s protected conduct. (The plaintiffs had various business relationships with the defendant.)

Georgia Employees’ FLSA Claims to be Amended in Attempt at Class Certification

May 14, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In attempting to assert an Atlanta employment law claim, it important that the plaintiff include the appropriate allegations and requests for relief. Sometimes, however, more information becomes available as the case develops, such that a plaintiff may attempt to file an “amended complaint” to include the new information or an updated demand for relief.

Depending upon the court rules and the status of the proceedings, the plaintiff may or may not need the court’s permission to file an amended complaint. Likewise, the defendant may wish to alter its answer. A timely request to amend the pleadings is important, regardless of whether it is the plaintiff or the defendant who is making the request.

An amended pleading may appear to give the parties more than a single “bite at the apple,” so to speak. However, there are limitations on what can be accomplished via an amendment, as rules such as the statute of limitations still apply.

Federal Court Remands Georgia Man’s Employment Law Case to State Court Due to Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction

May 8, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Generally speaking, the person who files an Atlanta employment law case gets choose the court (state or federal) in which the matter will ultimately be tried. However, there are some situations in which this is not so.

For instance, the employee may choose to file his or her lawsuit in state court, only to have the employer remove the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (Sometimes, it is possible to have the federal court send the matter back to state court (although this is the exception, not the rule).)

As for the reasons for choosing state court instead of federal court (or wanting a case removed to federal court after it has been filed in state court), the reasons tend to be very specific to an individual situation. In one case, there may be a belief that one court or the other may yield a result that is more favorable, or it could be that one court has a lengthy backlog of cases such that it will take substantially longer to get to trial. Location and convenience (or the added expense of inconvenience) may also factor in.

Former Airport Employee’s Federal Retaliatory Discharge Claims Fail, but Georgia Whistleblower Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice

April 28, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There are laws in place to protect public employees who do the right thing and report wrongdoing in the workplace, only to find themselves reprimanded, demoted, or even terminated. While these laws will not necessarily keep retaliatory actions from happening, they do provide the basis for an Atlanta retaliatory discharge lawsuit, along with several important remedies that can be of benefit to the plaintiff.

Each case must be tried on it’s own merits, of course, but some commonly available potential outcomes include restoration of the employee’s job and/or benefits, back pay, and/or special damages. The first step in seeking justice in a retaliatory discharge case is to contact an attorney who can help you understand the laws that protect public employees and explain the steps that are necessary in order to assert one’s legal rights thereunder.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiff was former director of administration and finance and assistant executive director for the defendant airport commission. His employment began in 2008 and ended in 2017. He filed suit against the commission, its executive director (who was sued in both in individual and official capacities), and the city in which the airport was located, asserting a claim for retaliatory discharge. According to the plaintiff, he had reported several violations of law and policy by the commission. These included ongoing violations of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, as well as harassment and discrimination against a fellow employee.