Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

11th Circuit: Attacking Employer’s Business Judgment Not Enough to Show Pretext in Discrimination Case

November 25, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An employee at an auto parts manufacturer was unsuccessful in his pursuit of his claim of race and national origin discrimination. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employer because the employee’s attacks on the employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions did not demonstrate that the employer’s reasons were mere pretexts for discrimination. Although the case originated in Alabama, the 11th Circuit’s ruling is very instructive for Georgia employees regarding what does (or does not) show pretext in employment discrimination cases.

The alleged victim of discrimination was Claude Short, who had worked for Mando American Corp. as the Quality Director at its Opelika, Alabama facility since 2006. By late 2008, the employer had transitioned Short into a new role. The employer wanted Short to work from an office in suburban Detroit, but he persuaded the company to let him work from a vacation home he owned in Tennessee.

Alert to Tennessee Employers: Errors in Your Employee Manuals Can Cost You When it Comes to FMLA Litigation

November 18, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A county road commission worker was able to deflect his employer’s attempt to defeat his Family and Medical Leave Act case by arguing that the employee was ineligible. Although the employee was, in fact, ineligible, the employer’s poorly worded employee manual appeared to promise FMLA coverage to the employee. That was enough for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide the employee was allowed to go forward to trial with the argument that the employer should be legally barred from arguing about eligibility as a result of the misrepresentation and the employee’s reliance upon it.

The worker who sued was Terry Tilley, an employee of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. In late July 2011, Tilley’s supervisor reprimanded him for failing to complete certain assignments on time. The supervisor imposed a new set of deadlines by which Tilley must have his work finished or else face additional punishment, including job termination. On the morning of the last day for completing one of the assignments, Tilley suffered a medical event that led to his admission to a hospital, from which he was not released until the next day.

Alleged Recruiting Violations Doom Georgia High School Football Coach’s Racial Discrimination Suit

November 11, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An African-American high school football coach, the first in a west Georgia high school’s history since desegregation, lasted only two seasons before getting fired. The school alleged that it acted due to the coach’s improper recruiting practices. The coach claimed that racial discrimination was the real reason. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment in favor of the school in the coach’s Title VII case. The outcome serves as a reminder to Georgia employers and employees that, in showing that the stated reason for termination was a mere pretext for discrimination, an employee must not simply show that the employer’s basis was incorrect or unfounded. As long as the employer honestly believed the nondiscriminatory reason for the firing, the action was not a pretext for discrimination, no matter how wrong that reasoning was.

The coach was Charles Flowers, who had won state championships in football and baseball while coaching at Shaw High School in Columbus from 1987 to 2005. In 2010, Troup High School hired Flowers, who became the first African-American football coach at the school since Troup County schools desegregated in 1973.

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.