The Tennessee Court of Appeals at Jackson recently upheld a summary judgment motion against an employee who had claimed her employer retaliated and interfered with her leave in violation of the Tennessee Disabilities Act.

In Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corporation, Lataynia Jones was an employee at Sharp Electronics Corporation from 1996 until her termination in November 2009.  During her time of employment, she was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and, like all union members, covered under a collective bargaining agreement.  The collective bargaining agreement granted employees 140 days of leave, including 56 in addition to the 12 weeks of leave permitted by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  Jones was granted leave under the FMLA multiple times beginning September 2003.

In 2008, Jones took 11 days of leave in October, two weeks of leave in November, and then nearly two months from the end of November through January 19, 2009.  In September 2009, Jones requested additional leave under the FMLA, stating that she suffered from depression.  Her employer approved a leave time from September 20, 2009 through October 19, 2009.  However, Jones was advised that after October 19 her leave time under the FMLA would be exhausted, and that she had used 26 days of leave under the collective bargaining agreement.  Though she had 30 days of collective bargaining agreement leave remaining, Sharp informed Jones that she would be expected to return to work on October 20, and that any further leave would be at Sharp’s discretion.  Continue reading ›

A federal court in Tennessee recently certified a group of call center employees as a class under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), clearing the first hurdle in their class-action lawsuit.  While most federal class-action lawsuits must meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, class-action lawsuits under the FLSA must instead meet the standards of FLSA section 216(b). 

In Rice v. Cellco Partnership, the employees seeking to form a class worked in the Cellco Murfreesboro, Tennessee call center, where they claimed that they were routinely required to perform work “off of the clock” that was actually compensable.  In particular, the employees needed to arrive at their desks at least 15 minutes (and most often 20 to 30 minutes) before their shift began for the purpose of preparing to log onto the Rockwell phone system and take their first calls.  The employees were allegedly disciplined if they were not prepared to take their first call at the start time, and were not allowed to include any time not reflected in the Rockwell phone system.  The employees were allegedly required to check for work-related emails before and after work and during their lunch breaks, for which they were not compensated.  If they logged the actual time they spent working, the employees were disciplined.  Finally, the employees claimed that although they were paid for part of their overtime hours, they were not paid for all of them.

The employees requested that the federal court conditionally certify the action as a collective action under the FLSA and authorize them to send notice to all current and former employees who had worked as customer service representatives for Cellco during the past three years.  Meanwhile, Cellco argued that the employees failed to meet their burden for conditional certification, in that they could not establish that they were similarly situated to the proposed class, or that Cellco had a common policy to violate its lawful policies.  Continue reading ›

A federal judge in Georgia recently dismissed the lawsuit of an employee who claimed that she had been discriminated against due to her gender and retaliated against for taking time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

In Wright v. Aramark Corporation, Tracey Wright was employed by Aramark Corporation and worked at the Albany State University campus.  She had originally applied for the position of office manager, but after she was hired, claimed that her position was changed to “office worker” with less pay, despite the fact that she did the work of an office manager until the date of her termination.  During her time of employment, she claimed to have been subject to harassment, discrimination, and inappropriate remarks.  For example, one co-worker allegedly placed dog bones on her chair to imply that she was a dog.  Furthermore, she claimed that her employer failed to promote her, failed to compensate her fairly, knowingly hired and promoted individuals who tended to discriminate against Wright, denied her religious accommodations, and penalized her for complaining against unlawful discrimination.  Her employer also violated her rights under the FMLA, reprimanding her for and interfering with her right to take medical leave.

Wright claimed that in addition to violating the FMLA, her employer was liable under Title VII for discrimination, for wrongful termination, and for a violation of the Equal Pay Act.  Aramark Corporation and Albany State University responded to her complaints by filing a motion to dismiss, claiming that Albany State University was not Wright’s employer and, as a government entity, could not be sued.  Wright responded that Albany State University could be sued under Title VII and was her employer because the stationary used by Aramark stated that Aramark was a component of the university.  She also argued that individual supervisors mentioned in the complaint could be held vicariously liable through Title VII.

Continue reading ›

In a setback for one employee, a federal district court in Georgia recently ruled against her on a summary judgment motion.  Kejar Butler had claimed racial discrimination and retaliation for taking time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

In Butler v. SunTrust Bank, Kejar Butler was an African American woman who began working for SunTrust in January 2005.  During the fall of 2011, Butler took eight weeks of leave in order to give birth to her child.  At the time, Butler was the assistant branch manager of the Thomasville branch of SunTrust, and during her absence, the position of branch manager became vacant.  Butler applied for the position, and upon return from maternity leave, was interviewed along with two other internal candidates.  Eventually SunTrust hired a different candidate, a white woman.

The area manager who did the hiring had directly supervised and evaluated both Butler and Heather Barnes, the woman who was hired.  During the interview process, he interviewed Barnes in person and Butler by telephone.  Following her interview, Butler learned that she would not be getting the manager position due to her poor client service scores and inadequate coaching logs.  Butler complained to the SunTrust management, then later went on to file a lawsuit on the grounds of Title VII racial discrimination and retaliation against her for exercising her rights under the FMLA.  SunTrust responded by filing a motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading ›

Many individuals who work in Georgia are already aware of the fact that their employment is “at will.” What that means is that an employer in Georgia is allowed to terminate an individual for practically any reason. Georgia courts typically state that an employee can be terminated for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. So how can someone working in Georgia be “wrongfully terminated?” The answer is that there is no generic claim in Georgia for “wrongful termination.” Instead, there are various specific claims—such as retaliation, discrimination, or breach of contract—that sometimes arise when an employee is terminated.

Continue reading ›

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against the owner of a well-known Atlanta-area restaurant/nightclub, Taboo 2 Bar and Bistro. The agency has alleged that Sirdah Enterprises, Inc. broke the law by permitting, on an ongoing basis, sexual harassment to take place with respect to its female servers throughout the course of their careers with the company.

Continue reading ›

Many people who work in the state of Georgia are unaware of the state’s laws with respect to wages. Given the current economic times, many individuals are just happy to have a job, regardless of whether or not they are receiving fair pay for the work performed. Still, any Atlanta employment attorney will tell you that it is important for people who work to know that there are certain hour and wage laws that the state must follow.

Continue reading ›

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently sued Fannin County, Georgia for age discrimination on the basis that the county violated the law by choosing to layoff employees who were over 60 years of age. According to the lawsuit, the Fannin County Road Department decided to reduce its workforce back in November 2011. There were 11 people chosen to be laid off, four of whom were younger than 60 years of age and seven of whom were older than 60. Subsequently, the County ended up rehiring three of the four employees who were under 60 within a few months of being laid off; however, the County did not rehire any of the employees who were older than 60.

Continue reading ›

Sexual harassment in the workplace is more common than people realize, but it often goes unreported because many victims do not want to risk losing their jobs if they discuss the issue with their employers. According to a report released by the Everyday Sexism Project, both men and women are experiencing workplace harassment on a routine basis. Your Atlanta sexual harassment lawyer will tell you that oftentimes, the victims are blamed for the occurrence of sexual harassment; however, more and more companies and individuals are starting to take such claims and allegations much more seriously.

Continue reading ›

There has been a fair amount of buzz in the media about undocumented workers and fair wages for those individuals in recent months. Many Georgia employment lawyers have noticed that immigration reform is a topic of interest for many people, particularly the millions of immigrant workers who are part of the workforce in the United States. In fact, according to a MintPress news article, a three-judge panel decided that, regardless of an employee’s legal status in the United States, all employers are required to pay those workers legal wages, along with any other monies that have been promised to such workers.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information