Sexual Harassment

Georgia Man’s Claims for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Survive Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Federal Court

March 16, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta sexual harassment claim filed under Georgia state law or federal law, the defendant will likely seek to have the plaintiff’s case dismissed on summary judgment prior to trial. Summary judgment is only appropriate in cases in which there are no genuine issues of material fact. This is because factual issues are to be determined by the finder of fact – typically a jury, but sometimes a trial court judge – during the trial, not beforehand by a motion judge.

Not just “any” dispute of fact will prevent a decision granting summary judgment (and, most likely ending the plaintiff’s case). Rather, only disputes in which a reasonable jury could find in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment are considered “genuine issues of material fact.” Even though the nonmoving party may ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial, it is the party who seeks summary judgment who has the burden of showing an absence of genuine factual issues that must be resolved at trial.

In attempting to meet this burden, the party seeking summary judgment may rely on the parties’ pleadings, any depositions that have been taken during the discovery phase of the litigation, the parties answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions, affidavits, and the like. Of course, the party opposing the motion may point to similar evidence in resisting the motion. Ultimately, it is up to the trial court judge to decide whether the matter will end with summary judgment or proceed toward trial.

Georgia Woman’s Gender Discrimination Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court

September 16, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

No one should have to put up with discriminatory treatment in the workplace. After all, it’s 2019, and laws have been on the books for decades that protect workers from racial, gender, and age discrimination. Still, unlawful discrimination happens every day, sometimes culminating in an Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuit.

Of course, those who engage in such shameful conduct are rarely, if ever, willing to admit that they have done wrong. Instead, they make every effort to see that a plaintiff’s claims are dismissed by the courts. Fortunately, judges tend to see things differently, and many ill-advised motions to dismiss are met with a denial, either in whole or in part, by the trial court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who worked for the defendant manufacturing company from 2015 to 2018. She claimed that she was subjected to multiple instances of gender discrimination at the hands of the defendant supervisor during that time. Some of this conduct was verbal (such as calling her “stupid,” “slow,” and “ignorant”), but there were instances in which the supervisor’s actions physically harmed the plaintiff. After multiple complaints to human resources failed to remedy the situation, the plaintiff quit her job and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Federal Court in Georgia Lacked Jurisdiction to Grant Motion to Reconsider in Harassment Case

March 14, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment law case asserting a claim for discrimination, harassment, or other wrongful conduct, it is important that a potential litigant consult a knowledgeable attorney who can help him or her file the appropriate paperwork within the time allowed by law. If this is not done, it is likely that the plaintiff’s case will be dismissed. Of course, simply filing a “complaint” is not, in and of itself, sufficient; it is important that the proper parties be identified and that a valid claim for relief be stated.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed multiple complaints against the defendant commissioner, alleging that she had been the victim of harassment and disparate treatment and that the defendant had failed to make appropriate accommodations for her under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff’s first two complaints were dismissed as frivolous, after which the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider in the first action. However, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal before her motion was heard.

The plaintiff then filed a third case, asserting the same claims that she had asserted in her first two lawsuits. In the third suit, however, the plaintiff identified her former employer, rather than an employee, as a defendant, thus correcting the deficiency that had caused her first two cases to be dismissed.

Same-Sex Sexual Harassment and Title VII Litigation in Tennessee

October 12, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

While the most common version of workplace sexual harassment that most people visualize may be a male harassing a subordinate female, that is not the only form of sexual harassment that Title VII recognizes as actionable. Sexual harassment can be male-on-female, female-on-male, or same-sex. Additionally, the employees’ sexual orientation is not necessarily the key issue, either. In other words, a male can sexually harass another male worker, even if one or both men are heterosexual. All that the law requires in this regard is that the harassment is “based on sex.” An experienced Tennessee sexual harassment attorney can help you determine how to present your case. Continue reading ›

Tennessee Nurse Allowed to Pursue Title VII Case After Employer Allegedly Ignored or Minimized Multiple Instances of Sexual Harassment

August 22, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Publicly available employment law court rulings can often be very helpful, both to employers and to employees. Unfortunately, many court case decisions are instructive in a “what not to do” sense, for one side or the other. Working with experienced Tennessee employment law attorneys is one way to make sure you don’t fall into the “what not to do” traps that often ensnare real-life litigants. In a recent Tennessee sexual harassment case, it was the employee’s evidence related to the employer’s allegedly woefully inadequate response to sexual harassment that allowed her to take her case to trial. Continue reading ›

‘Quid Pro Quo’ Sexual Harassment and Federal Title VII Litigation in Georgia

June 16, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Almost 23 years ago, two Hollywood A-list actors, Michael Douglas and Demi Moore, starred in a dramatic film called “Disclosure.” The issue of workplace sexual harassment –- specifically, quid pro quo harassment –- was a key plot point in the film. In the movie, the female boss (Moore’s character) engaged in quid pro quo harassment of her male subordinate employee (Douglas’ character).

Georgia Worker’s Case Based Upon Bulge in Co-Worker’s Pants was a Claim ‘Based on Sex,’ 11th Circuit Says

December 21, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A woman who felt harassed at her job by a male co-worker took a cell phone picture to document the harassment to which she was subjected. For that, the employer terminated not the male employee but the woman, alleging that she violated workplace policies regarding taking other employees’ pictures without permission. The evidence the woman had was enough to support a sexual harassment claim, even if it wasn’t enough for a retaliation claim, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided.

Tennessee Warehouse Workers’ Complaints to Supervisor about Harassment Enough to Support Title VII Case

October 14, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals clarifies whether an employee’s verbal complaint to her supervisor about that supervisor’s sexual harassment can, by itself, be enough to constitute engaging in “protected activity” under Title VII. The case ruled that such informal complaints do qualify because any opposition to an unlawful employment practice, such as sexual harassment, is protected, and the law defines “oppose” broadly. This case stands as a clear warning to Tennessee employers that they cannot evade Title VII liability simply because workers do not follow formal procedures for opposing a supervisor’s sexually harassing conduct.

The employer in the case was New Breed Logistics, which operated a warehouse in Memphis. Three female workers in the warehouse’s receiving department accused a supervisor in their department, James Calhoun, of a barrage of incidents of sexual harassment. The employees stated that they repeatedly told Calhoun to stop, but he refused, stating that he would never get into trouble and that he “ran this” department. A male forklift driver backed up significant portions of the women’s assertions.

What Conduct Is (And Is Not) Grounds for a Federal Title VII Action in Georgia

September 23, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Several recent cases decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals offer an important lesson to both employers and employees in Georgia when it comes to federal Title VII lawsuits. Namely, the lesson is that there is a wide range of bad behavior that an employer should not condone, even in isolated frequency, but that are still not viable bases for an employee’s Title VII lawsuit. Title VII, as the courts have repeatedly held, does not exist to impose a “general civility code” within the workplace. To be the foundation of a Title VII lawsuit, conduct must be more than isolated incidents, and be more than just rude conduct, but must be a pervasive pattern of harassment that directly ties to the employee’s inclusion in a protected class.

In a case decided earlier this year, a Florida doctor, Cheryl Clark, sued the hospital at which she worked. She accused the chair of her department of discriminating against her as a woman. The chair allegedly told Clark she should not apply for a directorship because was “too confrontational” and “intimidating,” which Clark understood to mean that her conduct was inappropriate for a woman.

Federal Court in Georgia Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

July 21, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A federal court in Georgia has granted a motion for summary judgment in a sexual harassment case and entered judgment in favor of the employers.

In Denmark v. RPM, Inc., Tina Denmark, an African American woman, worked for TCI Powder Coatings as a quality control technician through an agency, The Staffing People, Inc., from 2008 until 2009. During that time, Denmark claimed to have suffered from gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After she filed her lawsuit against both TCI and The Staffing People, TCI filed a motion for summary judgment. It argued that Denmark failed to satisfy the administrative prerequisite to filing a suit under Title VII, that her claims did not establish a prima facie case for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation, and that Denmark failed to meet the burden of raising a dispute as to whether TCI’s reasons for terminating her were just a pretext.

The court examined whether TCI’s claims had merit. Denmark worked through The Staffing People at TCI’s small batch plant in Ellaville, Georgia, before being promoted to work in the main plant. Although Denmark’s job duties were assigned by TCI, she was required to execute a checklist before starting her position that acknowledged The Staffing People’s policies and procedures. Among other things, The Staffing People required Denmark to contact both TCI and The Staffing People if she was ever going to be late for work. The Staffing People permitted one instance of tardiness and one absence in the first 90-day period and each 90-day period thereafter. Should Denmark be terminated from TCI, she would also be terminated from The Staffing People.