Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

Groundskeeper’s Inability to Perform All ‘Essential’ Job Duties Dooms ADA Case, 11th Circuit Rules

February 3, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

If you’ve worked in most employment environments for very long, chances are you’ve seen it. “It” is the official job description of your job or the job you’re seeking. This description often contains a long list of “essential” duties, but some of those essential duties are, in the day-to-day completion of the job, rarely required. So what happens if you have a disability that impairs your ability to complete certain tasks that are “essential” but rarely needed? According to a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, those uncommon tasks still matter. Since the duties listed in a county’s groundskeeper job description were all related to the essential demands of maintaining the county’s parks, the county was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act when it fired a groundskeeper who could not perform all of the essential duties the county listed for that job.

ADA’s Reasonable Accommodation Requirement Doesn’t Demand Non-Competitive Job Reassignment, 11th Circuit Says

January 26, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Most employers know that the law obliges them to accommodate their employees with disabilities, as long as the accommodation sought is reasonable. The question with which employers and employees often wrestle is “What is the limit of reasonable?” For example, if an employer has an employee with a disability who needs an accommodation that involves job reassignment, how far must the employer go to make that happen? Must the employer place the employee into an acceptable open position ahead of other, more qualified applicants? A recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision said no.

The employee in the case was a nurse at a psychiatric hospital in Tampa. The nurse was obese and had arthritis. Her condition eventually worsened to the point that she required a cane to walk anything more than short distances. The nurse had a doctor’s note recommending the use of the cane. The employer, however, was worried that one of the facility’s psychiatric patients might take the nurse’s cane from her and use it as a weapon. Based upon this concern for both employees and patients, the employer prohibited the nurse from using the cane.

The nurse requested that the employer reassign her to a new job as a reasonable accommodation. The employer agreed that it would be willing to do so, but only after the nurse competed for any desired position and was selected as the most qualified candidate. The nurse applied for several jobs but was never selected. Eventually, the hospital terminated her employment.

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Decision for Employer That Denied Additional Leave to Employee With Disability

January 19, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In many types of litigation, timing can be crucial. This is true regarding how you go about carrying out your case procedurally, and it is often true when it comes to the facts of your case, especially if an employee is advancing a disability discrimination case based upon a denial of a leave request. In one recent case from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, that court upheld a lower court’s ruling for an employer. Since the employee was not able to do her job presently or in the immediate future, the employer’s denial of leave was not unreasonable.

Tennessee Cable Installers’ FLSA Class Action Goes Back Before Sixth Circuit After U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

January 12, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A multi-million dollar class action case involving numerous Tennessee cable TV installers who were wrongly denied overtime pay will once again go before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a very short order, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Sixth Circuit to take another look at the installers’ case in light of another case that, like the installers’ case, involved using statistical evidence to arrive at the amount of damages.

Sixth Circuit: National Security Exception Doesn’t Diminish Employer’s Obligation Not to Engage in Disability Discrimination

January 5, 2017 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The government’s interest in protecting national security, including national security information, can be very wide-ranging. However, based upon a recent ruling issued by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, national security exceptions do not allow a government-run nuclear power plant to revoke a medical clearance in a way that constitutes discrimination. The ruling means that, without an applicable exception, the employer must face the disability discrimination claim of a nuclear plant officer who was fired after failing a pulmonary function test and losing his medical clearance.

Sixth Circuit Revives FMLA Interference Case Against Employer that Delayed Reinstating Employee From Leave

December 28, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A nurse was able to revive his Family and Medical Leave Act claim against his former employer after the employer failed to reinstate him from leave immediately after he informed the employer of his availability. Since reasonable jurors could disagree regarding whether the employer handled the reinstatement in a way that complied with the law, the nurse’s case was not one properly decided by issuing summary judgment, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided.

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.

Georgia School District Settles Sex Discrimination Case with Former Superintendent

December 14, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A groundbreaking 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which revived a Georgia school superintendent’s sex discrimination case, has paved the way to a $400,000 settlement award for the former superintendent, the Thomasville Times-Enterprise reported. The settlement marks the end to litigation that allowed the 11th Circuit to weigh in on how courts should handle cases like this one, in which there was a mixture of valid bases for the adverse employment action along with clear proof of gender-based bias.

Sixth Circuit Ruling Highlights When Title VII Does (and Doesn’t) Protect Partners in a Partnership

December 7, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Title VII’s protections are intended to protect employees from impermissible discrimination. In furtherance of that goal, a person must in fact be an employee in order to pursue a Title VII violation case. Some partners in businesses may qualify, but only if they prove that they are only “nominal” partners. In a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case, an ophthalmologist lost because the proof in her case showed that her standing as a partner was genuine and was much more than just nominal, meaning that she was not an employee under Title VII.

Eleventh Circuit: Proof of Employee’s Understanding of ‘Fluctuating Workweek’ Pay Dooms FLSA Claim

November 23, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Fair Labor Standards Act allows employers to use various different methods to pay employees while still remaining compliant with the law. One of these methods is the “fluctuating workweek method,” or paying a base weekly salary to an employee regardless of the hours the employee worked. The key to using this method and remaining in compliance with the law is establishing a clear understanding about how the employee will be paid. In a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case of note to Georgia employers and employees, the employee’s testimony in a deposition proved that the required level of “clear understanding” existed in this case, and the employer was not in violation of the law’s overtime pay rules.