Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

New Transgender Discrimination Case Could Have Impact on Tennessee Employers, Employees

November 4, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A new case still making its way through the pre-trial process in a federal court in Michigan could eventually offer new and additional clarity for Tennessee employers and employees regarding the law of discrimination against transgender people in the workplace if it reaches the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case serves as a renewed reminder that, although transgender people are not expressly covered by Title VII, the law does prohibit employers from discriminating using sex-based stereotypes, and such prohibitions already extend to matters like an employee’s shift from wearing stereotypically male clothes to female clothes as part of the employee’s transitioning process.

The employee in the case was Amiee Stephens, who had worked as a funeral director and embalmer at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. in suburban Detroit since the fall of 2007. In the summer of 2013, Stephens, who had lived as a man up to that point, informed her employer that she was transgender, was in the process of transitioning from male to female, and would begin attending work in business-appropriate women’s wear. Within less than three weeks, the funeral home had declared the employee’s proposed actions unacceptable and fired her.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Ruling for Employer in FMLA, Pregnancy Discrimination Dispute

October 28, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Pregnant women in the workplace face many challenges. Sometimes, those challenges can include things like being forced to take unpaid leave when their pregnancies restrict them on the job. One gas station worker, whom her employer forced onto leave after she became limited at work, lost her Family and Medical Leave Act and pregnancy discrimination suit. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that concluded that, although the employer’s policy might appear harsh, the employee had no proof the employer did anything that comprised a violation of the law.

The employee, Lauri Huffman, was a shift leader at a Speedway LLC gas station when she became pregnant. The job sometimes required her to work long shifts and perform strenuous physical tasks. Four months into her pregnancy, the woman’s OB/GYN told the patient to stop working shifts longer than eight hours and to take 15-minute breaks every four hours. Huffman conveyed the information to her employer, and Speedway accommodated her restrictions.

Georgia City’s First Female Warden Loses Jail Post, Then Loses Gender Discrimination Case

October 21, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A female sheriff’s employee who was demoted after the incumbent sheriff lost an election was not able to pursue a claim against the new sheriff and the local government that her treatment amounted to impermissible gender discrimination. The employee’s case was doomed when both the trial court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the employer had a legitimate reason for its actions, and the employee’s evidence was insufficient to prove that the stated, legitimate reason was a mere pretext for discriminatory intent.

The employee in the case was Terri Ezell, a deputy in the sheriff’s office for Muscogee County, Georgia. Ezell was a trail blazer in many ways. She was the first woman ever to rise to the rank of major in the department and also was the first female warden of the local jail.

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.

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Employee’s Disability Discrimination Case Due to Proposed Accommodation’s Lack of Reasonableness

October 6, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

If you are a person with a disability, the Americans With Disabilities Act may require your employer to engage in an interactive process with you regarding providing an accommodation for your disability. However, in order for the law to require the employer to pursue that process, you must first identify an accommodation, and that accommodation must be reasonable. An employee at a county jail’s medical unit recently lost her case in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals because she failed to propose a reasonable accommodation. The case is an instructive one regarding what Georgia employees must do in order to trigger their employers’ obligations to engage in an interactive process.

In this case, Lisa Spears was a corrections officer at the medical unit of the Wakulla County Jail in Crawfordsville, Florida. In 2011, Spears received a diagnosis of pre-cancer. Her doctors diagnosed her with cancer early the next year. In March 2012, the Sheriff’s Office outsourced the medical care of jail inmates to a private contractor, which resulted in the elimination of Spears’ job. Ineligible for a position with the contractor, the employee asked the Sheriff to transfer her to a lieutenant position within the jail. The Sheriff declined because no lieutenant positions were vacant at that time but did offer Spears a detention deputy position.

Differentiating Between Interns and Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Georgia

September 30, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

On Sept. 25, Warner Bros. Pictures released “The Intern,” a film starring Robert DeNiro as an intern at an e-commerce fashion company. Two weeks earlier, in an event of potentially much greater significance to interns in Georgia and the employers who use them, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision that revived the Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by a group of interns. It included a new, seven-part test for determining whether a worker is an intern or an employee for purposes of the statute.

The case involved a group of students pursuing masters’ degrees as registered nurse anesthetists. As a mandatory part of their educational program, students were required to complete a clinical curriculum. For Billy Schumann and 24 other Wolford College students, this consisted of spending 16 months as interns at Collier Anesthesia, a service provider in Naples, Fla. The interns were not paid for the services they provided at Collier.

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.

Welder’s FMLA Retaliation Case Fails Due to Lack of Proof that Leave Request Triggered Termination

September 16, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Winning a claim for illegal retaliation against an employee’s request for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act requires several types of proof. One essential ingredient is evidence showing that the employee’s request for leave was (in whole or in part) the cause for his termination. A welding technician’s case fell short because the people he told about his leave request were not among the people who made the decision to terminate his employment, leading the trial court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide that his case lacked this vital proof of a link of causation.

Ed Rudy had worked as a ceramic welding technician for Walter Coke, Inc., a manufacturer of coke used in blast furnaces and foundries, since 2000. In 2009, he missed several months of work due to a back injury. In the summer of 2010, he hurt his back again while moving a 55-pound bag of silica powder. Rudy sought medical attention and was scheduled for a diagnostic imaging procedure in late September. After undergoing the procedure, Rudy told his immediate supervisor that the results were poor and that he would need back surgery.

Employer Not Required to Offer Telecommuting Accommodation to Employee Who Could Not Perform Job’s Essential Functions

September 9, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a very important topic within the realm of disability discrimination law: specifically, when is telecommuting a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability? In the case of one Ford Motor Co. employee, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the employer’s refusal to allow an employee to telecommute four days per week was not the denial of a reasonable accommodation, but a case of an employee unable to perform the essential functions of her job.

The employee, Jane Harris, was a resale buyer with Ford who had irritable bowel syndrome. Harris’ job performance steadily declined during her time with Ford, in part due to her condition. Ford had occasionally approved telecommuting for Harris, but, even with the accommodation, the employee’s performance continued to worsen.

Employment Status and Your Federal Age Discrimination Case

August 26, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A surgeon who sued a hospital after the hospital revoked the doctor’s surgical privileges when the surgeon turned 70 never got the chance to prove the existence of age-based discrimination. Whether or not the hospital made its decision based upon age, the surgeon could not succeed on his Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. The trial court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals both concluded that the doctor failed to show that the relationship between the hospital and surgeon was one of employer-employee, not employer-independent contractor. Since independent contractors cannot pursue ADEA claims, the doctor’s case failed.

Moshe Ashkenazi was a surgeon who provided on-call services at the South Broward Hospital District. After the hospital revoked his privileges, the doctor sued. The septuagenarian surgeon claimed that the decision to revoke his privileges was the result of age discrimination. The hospital asked for summary judgment in the case. Ashkenazi, it argued, could not mount a successful age discrimination case because he was an independent contractor, not an employee of the hospital. The trial court agreed and ruled for the hospital.