Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

Federal Appellate Court for Florida, Georgia, and Alabama Affirms Dismissal of Worker’s Employment-Related Claims

August 15, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There are many ways in which an employer can violate an employee’s rights under state, federal, or constitutional laws. However, not every disagreement about matters in the workplace is actionable in court.

Most Atlanta employment law cases go through a lengthy pre-trial phase, in which an employer may seek dismissal of all or some of the employee’s claims if the employer believes that the employee’s claim(s) is not viable. The trial court makes the initial decision in such situations, but an appellate court may eventually weigh in if one or both parties seeks further review. If you feel your rights may have been violated by your employer, it is important to discuss the matter with an Atlanta employment law attorney.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the circuit court that hears appeals from federal district courts located in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama), the plaintiff was a man who brought multiple claims against the defendant employer in federal court. These claims included retaliation claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), (Title VII); defamation claims; alleged violations of the Federal Privacy Act; and claims that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Federal Court Narrows Employment Discrimination Claims in Georgia Man’s Suit Against Employer

August 8, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuit, a plaintiff may have several potential claims. Some of these may be claims under federal law, and some may be state law claims. In some situations, the defendants may include both a corporate or government employer and one or more individuals.

It is not unusual for some or all of the defendants in an employment discrimination or retaliation case to seek dismissal of the claims pending them prior to trial. It is up to the trial court to determine which claims are viable if such a motion is filed.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a civilian employee of the United States Army. In his suit against the Secretary of the Army, his former supervisor, and the deputy garrison commander, the plaintiff alleged that he had been subjected to unlawful employment discrimination due to his gender, age, national origin, and disabilities and that he had been retaliated against due to his complaints of unlawful discrimination. He sought legal redress under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e – 2000e17; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 – 12117; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 – 634; and Georgia state law.
Continue reading ›

Federal Court Dismisses Atlanta Woman’s Race Discrimination and FMLA Claims

July 28, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Discrimination based on race, gender, and age is still alarmingly common. If you believe you have been a victim of such unlawful conduct, you should talk to an Atlanta employment discrimination attorney about the possibility of filing a claim against your employer.

However, you should be aware of the requirements of such a claim, namely, that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to proof his or her case. This is not always easy, as most employers deny that any discrimination actually occurred.

Instead, the employer will likely point the finger at the plaintiff, blaming him or her for creating a situation that led to the dismissal, demotion, or failure to promote about which the employee complains.

Georgia Woman’s Suit Against Employer Was Not Judicially Estopped for Failure to Disclose Potential Claim in Bankruptcy Proceeding

July 23, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An Atlanta employment law case can have many nuances and potential complications. Thus, it is critical that the plaintiff in such an action receive dependable, accurate legal advice. If you think you may have a claim against your employer, you should talk to an attorney right away. A lawyer who is experienced in handling litigation between employees and their current, former, or potential employers can help steer you through the complex process of asserting your legal rights.

Sometimes, an employee may have more than one claim, or an employment-related claim may affect other, pending litigation. Hence, it is important to let your attorney know about litigation to which you may be a current or potential party.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who sent ante litem notice of a whistleblower claim to the defendant county in August 2016, informing it of a claim that may have arisen as early as September 2015 pertaining to alleged retaliation and demotion for her refusal to succumb to the demands of a certain county commissioner to use an amphitheater (which she managed, on the county’s behalf) for his private gain. Her lawsuit followed a few weeks thereafter. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy (which she filed in 2014) was proceeding in federal court.
Continue reading ›

Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to Employer in Georgia Man’s Employment Discrimination and Defamation Lawsuit

July 16, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In order to be successful in an Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. This requires time, skill, and perseverance, so it is important to talk to an attorney who is experienced in this field of the law if you believe that you may have a case. In most cases, the court will dismiss the plaintiff’s claim(s) well in advance of trial if he or she is not able to put forth credible evidence to support his or her case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was an African American man who worked as a machine operator in the fabrication department of the defendant employer but was fired after an incident in which a fellow employee was arrested for possession of marijuana in the workplace. According to the employer’s version of events, the plaintiff could not explain what was in his hand in a video that was taken of an apparent interchange between him and the employee who was later arrested. The plaintiff contended, however, that he told the employer that another employee had asked him to buy her a drink and that it was her change that was in his hand. The parties agreed that, after this discussion concerning the video, the plaintiff was terminated from his employment.

After filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and being granted a right to letter, the plaintiff filed suit against the employer, as well as a supervisor, a manager, a human resources manager, and the vice-president of the company, asserting claims for disparate treatment and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq, as well as for defamation. After the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Waycross Division, granted partial summary judgment to the individual defendants on the plaintiff’s Title VII claims, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment as to both claims pending against it.
Continue reading ›

Federal Court Dismisses Georgia Woman’s Gender-Based Employment Discrimination Claim

July 9, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There are several different types of unlawful conduct that may be asserted in an Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuit: Sex discrimination, race or color discrimination, age discrimination, national origin discrimination, religious discrimination, and/or disability discrimination.

As with other types of civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. This is not always an easy task, given that an employer accused of wrongful conduct will often fight extremely hard against a finding of employment discrimination, so as to discourage other employees from also taking legal action.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who worked for the defendant county for approximately 20 years before applying for a construction director position in 2013 (her job at the time was “Planner III,” which involved coordinating the work of contractors, managing projects, and handling associated paperwork.) The defendant division director was responsible for interviewing candidates for the construction director position and making a recommendation to his supervisor. The plaintiff, along with several others, applied for the job and went through the interview process, but she was not offered the position. Rather, the job was offered to a male who had interviewed for the job, and, when he declined the offer, an offer was made to another male who did not interview for the position (the director knew this individual through other projects). After the second male also turned down the job, the spot was left open.
Continue reading ›

Federal Court Denies College’s Motion to Dismiss Georgia Woman’s Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

June 27, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment discrimination case, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. In order to succeed at trial, the plaintiff must be able to prove each and every element of his or her case. Of course, the defendant in such a case is often quick to seek dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, sometimes before the discovery process has even begun. In some situations, dismissal of a particular complaint is warranted, but, more often, it is not.

Facts of the Case

In a recent employment discrimination case filed in federal court, the plaintiff was an African-American woman who began working for the defendant college in 2017. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, she was bullied at work and subjected to a hostile work environment. Approximately six weeks after she began her employment, the defendant terminated the plaintiff, allegedly verbally telling her that she was “just not a good fit” and then mailing her a letter stating that her discharge was due to her “failure to perform job duties as assigned.”

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, asserting claims of race discrimination, retaliation, bullying, and harassment by a co-worker. Presumably after that proceeding had been completed, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in federal court, asserting similar claims. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.
Continue reading ›

Federal Court Strikes Pro Se Plaintiff’s “Reply” to Former Employer’s Answer to Employment Discrimination Claim

June 20, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

As seasoned Atlanta employment discrimination attorneys, we struggle to understand why anyone would choose to represent himself or herself in a lawsuit against a current or former employer. Perhaps, those who make such a dangerous and dubious decision do so because they simply do not know what they do not know.

Attorneys have many years of formal education and training regarding the thousands of statutes, ordinances, regulations, and court rules that could potentially apply to a given case, and they work very hard to stay current, as these laws are constantly changing and being reinterpreted by the courts.

A person who chooses to represent his or her own interests in state or federal employment law litigation is expected to know, understand, and apply the applicable legal principles in the same manner as would an attorney with years of experience in the field. Not surprisingly, most pro se cases end up being dismissed, often on procedural grounds.

Georgia Worker’s Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Seeking Redress Under Title VII and ADEA Dismissed as Untimely

June 11, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

When it comes to legal matters, such as an Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuit, time is of the essence. When a claim is not filed within the time allowed by law, it will, in all likelihood, be dismissed by the court.

While there are a limited number of circumstances in which an exception may be made, such cases are few and far between. If you believe that you have a possible claim of employment discrimination, it is very important that you contact an attorney who can help you with your claim so that you do not lose the right to seek legal redress from your employer (or former employer, potential employer, etc.).

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a former employee of the defendant hospital. In his employment discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that he had been subjected to discrimination because of his race and his age. He sought legal redress under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (Title VII), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (ADEA). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action because he had not alleged that he filed suit within 90 days after receiving his right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Georgia Employee Was Entitled to Pursue Quantum Meruit Pay, Even Though His Employment Contract Was Too Vague to Enforce

June 5, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Each Atlanta employment law case is unique, with its own set of facts and issues. In addition to matters such as sexual harassment and employment discrimination, the issue of compensation is fairly common.

Disputes about an employee’s pay can occur at many different pay levels, from employees who maintain that they were not paid even the federally mandated minimum wage to professionals who claim that they were not compensated according to a written or oral agreement between them and the business for which they worked. At the end of the day, everyone – from the lowest paid to the most highly compensated individuals – want a fair wage for the work they have done.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who had an unpaid clerking position with the defendant law firm while he was attending law school. After obtaining his license, the plaintiff accepted a job as a “contract associate” with the firm. Via an employment agreement (in the form of a letter), the law firm agreed to compensate the plaintiff for his services by paying him a part of the fee earned by the firm upon the resolution of cases in which he was involved. The exact amount of compensation was not specified but was to be determined on a case by case basis.