Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

11th Circuit: Lawyer Who Participated in Former Co-Worker’s Lawsuit Allowed to Pursue Retaliation Case

June 21, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employers have a reasonably wide latitude in the non-discriminatory reasons that they state as bases for terminating employees. That latitude does not, however, extend to punishing an employee for “disruptive conduct” if the conduct in question was testifying on behalf of a co-worker in her Title VII discrimination case. A recent ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a terminated employee to pursue his retaliation claim. Testifying in a Title VII case is a protected activity under the law, and punishing him under the guise of “disruptive conduct” for giving unflattering testimony about his employer in his deposition raises a potential issue of retaliation.

Sixth Circuit Rules that Employee’s Evidence Raises Potential Claim for Retaliation, But Not Constructive Discharge

June 14, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An African-American customer service worker who was held back from promotion while other white coworkers with similar performance reviews were promoted had a potential claim for race discrimination and retaliation, according to a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The employee did not have a valid claim for constructive discharge, though. The decision is a reminder to Tennessee employees and employers of the higher level of intolerable conditions for a constructive discharge claim as compared to a retaliation claim.

Federal Government Creates New Overtime Rules to Take Effect Later This Year

June 7, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Georgia employers and employees will soon be operating by a new set of rules when it comes to overtime pay for certain salaried employees. On May 18, the White House and the US Department of Labor announced new rules that will greatly expand the range of salaried employees who qualify to receive overtime. The new rules more than double the salary cap for eligible employees and, according to the White House, make an additional 4.2 million workers eligible for overtime. The White House also expects the new rules to increase earnings by roughly $12 billion over the next decade.

The rules governing salaried employees’ eligibility for overtime contain within them a maximum salary above which salaried workers cannot receive overtime pay. Prior to the adoption of the new rules, the salary cap was $23,660. The new rules hike that eligibility maximum to $47,476. These new rules arose from a 2014 Presidential Memorandum in which President Obama directed the Labor Department to update the regulations related to who is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions. This was done in order to further “the President’s goal of ensuring workers are paid a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work.”

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Offers Extended Filing Time, Enhanced Opportunity to Georgia Employees Facing Discrimination

May 27, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A significant new ruling issued earlier this month by the U.S. Supreme Court offers very good news for employees who have been the victims of discrimination that was so bad that it ultimately forced them to quit their jobs in order to escape the mistreatment. According to the Court’s 7-1 majority, the statute of limitations for pursuing a discrimination claim does not even begin to run until the date the employee resigns, as opposed to the date of the last act of discrimination. This decision delays the start of that limitations period and gives employees in Georgia and across the country an expanded period of time to begin pursuing their claims.

The case leading to this ruling began in a post office in Colorado. Marvin Green, an African-American man, applied to be the postmaster of Englewood, Colorado. Another applicant received the job, and Green launched a claim, alleging that his rejection was the result of racial discrimination. According to Green, his supervisors responded to that action by threatening him with a criminal investigation on the basis of intentionally delaying the mail. Ultimately, the supervisors and Green worked out an agreement to avoid the investigation. Green would either accept a reassignment to the tiny and isolated town of Wamsutter, Wyoming (located four hours northwest of Green’s suburban Denver job) and the dramatic pay cut that went with it… or retire.

Job’s Required Use of Discretion Derails Loan Underwriters’ Overtime Lawsuit in Sixth Circuit

May 20, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In a recent case (and a noteworthy one to Tennessee employers and employees) that continues the exploration of which employees are, or are not, qualified under the Fair Labor Standards Act to receive overtime pay, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a bank’s failure to pay its residential mortgage loan underwriters overtime did not violate the FLSA. The underwriters performed tasks that were integral to one of the employer’s primary business objectives (lending money) and did their jobs using a substantial degree of discretion and independent judgment, so they were exempt from receiving overtime.

In this situation, a group of residential mortgage loan underwriters sued their employer, Huntington Bancshares, Inc., for failing to pay them overtime in violation of the FLSA. A federal district court in Ohio concluded that the underwriters were exempt from receiving overtime pay under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) because they qualified as administrative employees.

Investigating Employee Misconduct and Discrimination Law in Georgia

May 13, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

For Georgia employers engaging in the process of investigating an employee for possible misconduct, a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision offers useful knowledge about what is (and is not) required in order to avoid running afoul of Title VII and finding oneself liable for illegal discrimination. In that recent case, the court ruled against an employee who alleged sex discrimination, deciding that, even if the employer’s investigation into that employee was flawed, the employee lacked proof, as required by the law, that the employer’s actions were motivated by an intent to discriminate.

The employee in the case, Kendra Chukes, started work in 2012 as an assistant manager at a Popeye’s Chicken and Biscuits restaurant in Florida. Before Chukes started working at that location, the restaurant had experienced virtually no problems with cash shortages in its safe. However, less than two months into Chukes’ employment, the safe came up short on cash three times while she was on duty. Despite Chukes’ denial of involvement, a supervisor ordered her suspended without pay pending the conclusion of an investigation into the repeated instances of missing money. Ultimately, after interviewing several employees about the missing money, the supervisor decided to terminate Chukes.

What Happens When a Patient Makes a Race-Specific Caregiver Request? Sixth Circuit Ruling Offers Insight for Tennessee Employers

May 6, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Certain professional service providers, such as those in the medical profession, may sometimes find themselves in an awkward situation when a patient or patient’s family makes a request regarding the employees who will provide the patient’s care that is discriminatory in nature. Tennessee employers should take note of a recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that the employer’s handling of the request will not trigger a employment discrimination claim as long as the employer does nothing that would diminish the minority employee’s pay, benefits, or prestige, or otherwise materially affect the employee negatively.

In this case, a hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, had a patient in late 2010 whose family requested that no African-American caregivers be assigned to the patient. Jill Crane, a part-time nursing supervisor at the hospital and an African-American, learned about the family’s request from another nursing supervisor. Crane complained to the director of nursing, but to no avail.

Georgia Man’s Appeal in Disparate-Impact Age Discrimination Case to Go Before 11th Circuit… Again

April 27, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employees who believe that they’ve been victims of age discrimination received a huge benefit from a late 2015 decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, involving a North Georgia worker who sued his prospective employer for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The judges who heard the man’s appeal issued a groundbreaking ruling, stating, for the first time in the 11th Circuit, that employment candidates alleging age discrimination can use disparate impact to prove that an employer discriminated against them. That new tool is again being called into question, however, since the 11th Circuit has agreed to review the case again, this time by all of the judges of the Circuit.

In most federal appeals, the case is heard on appeal by a “panel” of three appellate judges. For the losing side, the law allows an option to request that the case be reheard, and decided, by all of the judges for that appeals court. This is called a rehearing en banc. That’s what R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. sought and obtained in a recent age discrimination case in the 11th Circuit.

Employer’s Demand of Psych Exam for Nurse Did Not Trigger ADA Violation, Sixth Circuit Rules

April 20, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Dealing with an employee who may have psychological issues, such as possible suicidal thoughts, can be a tricky issue for an employer. The employer has an obligation to protect the well-being of its other employees, but it also needs to ensure that it does not discriminate against the employee who may have a recognized disability. A recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of an Ohio employer in an Americans With Disabilities Act case offers some helpful insight for Tennessee employers facing this situation.

Peggy Barnum worked for The Ohio State University Medical Center as a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA). Her employment was without major incident for five years until major personal problems struck. In 2011, Barnum’s marriage ended in divorce, and her daughter was prosecuted for criminal violations. These issues bled over into her work, where the nurse allegedly opined, among other things, that “maybe I should put a gun to my head,” and “maybe I should do everybody a favor and not be around.” Barnum’s emotional problems were also affecting her work, where her level of focus was noted to be deficient.

Employee’s Conduct Caused Breakdown in Interactive Process, Defeat in 11th Circuit ADA Case

April 13, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A new ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals offers some encouragement for employers and useful knowledge for employees. The recent decision made it clear that, in disability discrimination cases, the obligation to engage in an interactive process requires each side to interact meaningfully with the other. In this case, a disabled employee’s failure to participate in the process in a good-faith manner ultimately doomed her Americans With Disabilities Act violation claim against her employer.

The employee in the case was Kimberly Agee, a worker in Mercedes Benz U.S. International, Inc.’s auto assembly plant in northern Alabama. After breast cancer surgery, Agee developed pain in her arm, and, as a result, her doctor placed her on a 15-pound lifting restriction. The employer moved Agee around to various jobs in the auto shop that accommodated her lifting restriction.