Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
Here in Georgia, workers who experience discrimination based on specific statutorily defined characteristics, like, for example, age and sexual orientation, are protected by federal law. If you are a worker who has experienced this kind of discrimination at work (or are an employer facing such an allegation), it pays to retain an experienced Atlanta employment discrimination lawyer to handle your case. The law requires a worker to clear certain legal hurdles if his case is to defeat employer motions (like a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment). A skilled advocate can be instrumental in ensuring that your pleadings are in order, whether you are the worker or the employer.
A recent workplace discrimination case from southwest Georgia illustrates the risks that a worker assumes when proceeding without counsel.
B.H., the employee, worked as a career development coordinator at a public university in Albany, Georgia. The coordinator was 40 years old, gay, and Black, and his “protected characteristics” allegedly placed a discriminatory target on him.
During his six-month tenure with the university, the coordinator opposed what he saw as “workplace mistreatment” by texting specific individuals at the university. The coordinator’s complaints alleged that his supervisor “made demeaning comments about him” and favored “hiring female workers over male workers.”
After his employment ended, B.H. sued, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
The defense successfully scuttled the coordinator’s ADEA claim on constitutional grounds. The university system’s board of regents is an arm of the state government of Georgia, and the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that states are immune from lawsuits except in cases where Congress has expressly allowed them — and ADEA lawsuits are not one of those types of cases.
Opposing ‘Bad Management’ is Not a Protected Activity
The coordinator’s retaliation claim under Title VII also fell short. As the court noted, a Title VII retaliation claim requires a proper allegation that the employee: “(1) engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) suffered a materially adverse employment action, and (3) a causal relationship between the two events exists.”
The first of these three elements — engaging in a protected activity — means something specific under the law. Namely, it requires a sufficient allegation that the employee took some kind of step to oppose an illegal practice. In B.H.’s case, all he gave the court was that he texted individuals to express concerns about bad leadership and workplace mistreatment.
The problem for B.H. is that mere bad management and simple mistreatment are not, by themselves, violations of federal anti-discrimination law. If the coordinator had asserted in his complaint that he texted superiors at the school regarding mistreatment that he incurred because he was male (or gay or an older worker), that potentially would qualify as a protected activity because the alleged mistreatment was rooted in illegal discrimination. Without this additional component to the allegations, B.H.’s texts were not protected activities for purposes of Title VII retaliation law.
The court dismissed the coordinator’s lawsuit but gave him permission to refile, leaving open the possibility that a more detailed and well-drafted complaint (specifically one composed by counsel) might potentially allow B.H. to proceed.
Whether you are an employee who believes you have experienced workplace discrimination or an employer defending against such an allegation, you need a powerful legal advocate on your side. The knowledgeable Atlanta employment retaliation attorneys at Parks, Chesin & Walbert can help. We handle these issues routinely, so we have the experience to guide you expertly through the process, no matter which side you are on. Contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today.