Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

No FMLA Eligibility? The Analysis May Not Be Over: EEOC Brings New Eleventh Circuit PWFA Case

October 5, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employers have long used the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as the starting point when an employee requests extended medical leave. A new lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Florida highlights an increasingly important limitation on that approach: when pregnancy or childbirth is involved, an employee who is not eligible for FMLA leave may nevertheless be entitled to leave under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”).

On September 30, 2026, the EEOC announced a lawsuit against Call 4 Health, a medical call center in Delray Beach, Florida. The action, EEOC v. Call 4 Health, Inc., No. 9:26-cv-81333, was filed in the Southern District of Florida, within the Eleventh Circuit. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated. EEOC

What Happened?

Georgia ADA Settlement Offers a Practical Lesson: Front-Line Supervisors Cannot Simply Say “We Don’t Accommodate Restrictions”

September 28, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A new disability-discrimination settlement from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Atlanta District provides a useful reminder that an employer’s ADA compliance system is only as effective as the supervisors who receive accommodation requests.

On September 23, 2026, the EEOC announced that Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain, agreed to pay $80,000 and implement additional remedial measures to resolve an ADA lawsuit involving a temporary employee at its Forest Park, Georgia logistics facility. The case, EEOC v. Exel Inc., Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01720-ELR-CCB, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia earlier this year. See https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/international-logistics-company-exel-pay-80000-settle-eeoc-disability-lawsuit.

What Happened?

When an Employee Complains About “Harassment,” Is It Protected Activity? A New Eleventh Circuit Decision Offers a Reminder

September 21, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employees frequently complain to management about “harassment,” unfair treatment, bullying, or a hostile work environment. But a new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit highlights an important distinction under Title VII: complaining about workplace mistreatment is not necessarily protected activity unless the employee communicates—expressly or implicitly—that the treatment involves unlawful discrimination.

In Lamb v. JG Management Services, Inc., No. 25-12445 (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former employee of an Atlanta-area employer. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/25-12445/25-12445-2026-09-16.html. The decision is unpublished, but because the underlying case arose in the Northern District of Georgia and applies established Eleventh Circuit precedent, it offers a timely practical lesson for both employees and employers.

What Happened?

Pregnancy Accommodations Meet Attendance Policies: New Amazon Lawsuit Highlights a Growing PWFA Risk

September 14, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A newly filed federal lawsuit against Amazon puts a recurring workplace problem under the spotlight: what happens when an employer’s ordinary attendance and productivity rules collide with an employee’s need for pregnancy-related accommodations?

On September 8, 2026, four former Amazon warehouse employees filed a proposed nationwide class action in federal court in Brooklyn alleging violations of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). See .https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/amazon-accused-lawsuit-of-systematic-pregnancy-discrimination-2026-09-08/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. The plaintiffs allege that Amazon failed to adequately accommodate pregnancy-related limitations and, in some instances, penalized employees under attendance or productivity policies for time associated with pregnancy-related medical needs. Amazon denies the allegations and has stated that more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests were approved during the prior year. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated.

The lawsuit is noteworthy because it illustrates how PWFA claims may arise even when an employer has a formal accommodation program—and why employers should examine how accommodations interact with automated or generally applicable attendance policies.

Eleventh Circuit Revives Race Discrimination and Retaliation Claims: Why Consistency Can Matter More Than the “Perfect” Comparator

September 8, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A new published decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit offers an important reminder for employers and employment litigators: a discrimination case does not necessarily fail simply because the plaintiff cannot identify a comparator who is “similarly situated in all material respects.”

In Guthrie v. Coal Bed Services, Inc., No. 24-10572 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2026) (https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202410572.pdf), the Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment against two Black employees and allowed their race-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to proceed. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstantial evidence could permit a jury to find intentional discrimination and retaliation.

What Happened?

Required Training Is Work Time: Georgia Wage-and-Hour Investigation Offers a Timely FLSA Reminder

August 24, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent U.S. Department of Labor investigation in Georgia provides a useful reminder that employers generally cannot require employees to attend job-related meetings, orientation, or training and then leave that time off the payroll.

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Labor announced that it had recovered $113,199 in back wages following an investigation of Premier Health Consultants LLC, which operated as St. Joseph Candler Urgent Care in Richmond Hill, Georgia. See USDOL, News Release, “US Department of Labor finds urgent care employer failed to pay over $113K in owed wages to workers for required orientation, meetings, training”, https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20260810 (August 10, 2026). According to the Department’s Wage and Hour Division, the employer failed to properly compensate employees for required orientation, meetings, training, and other work performed off the clock. The Department also found that the employer suspended an employee who questioned the company’s pay practices.

The investigation highlights two separate—but related—Fair Labor Standards Act risks: failing to capture all compensable working time and retaliating against employees who raise wage concerns.

When Attendance Becomes an ADA Issue: A New Eleventh Circuit Decision Offers Practical Guidance

August 18, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employers frequently face a difficult question when an employee’s medical condition causes repeated absences or tardiness: when does additional leave constitute a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and when may regular attendance itself be an essential job function?

A recent Eleventh Circuit decision provides useful guidance. In Zane Byrd v. Austal USA, LLC, No. 25-13131(11th Cir. July 1, 2026), the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on an electrician’s ADA discrimination and retaliation claims. See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/25-13131/25-13131-2026-07-01.html. Although the unpublished decision is not binding precedent, its analysis provides a useful roadmap for employers and employees when dealing with attendance-related accommodations.

The Employee’s Attendance Problems

The 11th Circuit Analyzes the Proper Process for Differentiating Employees from Independent Contractors Based on ‘Economic Reality’

January 30, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Incorrectly classifying a worker as an independent contractor when they really are an employee under the law can have many adverse consequences for the worker and the employer alike. In addition to tax liability, misclassifications can trigger liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act for minimum wage violations or unpaid overtime. To avoid these pitfalls, businesses should consult an Atlanta wage and hour lawyer to ensure they have correctly classified their workers.

To complete the employee-versus-independent-contractor classification process, one needs to understand what the laws governing the distinction between employees and independent contractors dictate. A recent unpaid overtime case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals offers a helpful reminder that classification status turns on economic reality, not simply the label the parties place on a worker.

The three plaintiffs in the case were insurance claims adjusters assigned to work claims in Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. The client, a Texas insurance agency, contracted with a staffing firm to provide adjusters. The adjusters’ contracts with the staffing firm labeled them as “independent contractors.”

Snow Day? What the Federal Rules Say About Partial-Week Business Closures and the Calculation of FMLA Leave

January 23, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

With extreme winter weather striking many parts of the country (and soon to bear down on this area), employers must consider the possibility of short-term closures. Whether an employer closes for a day or a few days, the closure affects all employees, including those on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. As with all aspects of FMLA leave calculation, if you have questions, make sure you get reliable answers by speaking to a knowledgeable Atlanta FMLA leave lawyer.

These issues are of keen importance to both employers and employees alike. An employer who deducts time from an employee’s total FMLA leave entitlement risks exposing itself to civil liability for FMLA interference. For employees, these issues are vitally important given the limited FMLA leave the statute provides (a maximum of 12 workweeks in a 12-month period).

Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division fielded a question about short-term business closures and FMLA leave. The entity seeking clarification in this case was a school employer dealing with a closure of less than one week.

Incentive Bonuses and Their Impact on Overtime Calculations for Non-Exempt Employees

January 16, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Many non-exempt employees may receive total compensation that includes various forms of pay. An employee, for example, might earn, in addition to their base pay, bonuses. Depending on the nature of these bonuses, earning a bonus may impact an employee’s “regular rate of pay” and, therefore, their rate of overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you have questions about bonus pay and how a particular bonus should (or should not) impact regular rate of pay and overtime calculations, you should speak to a knowledgeable Atlanta overtime compensation lawyer.

The U.S. Department of Labor recently published an opinion letter that examines in depth the issue of bonuses, regular rates of pay, and overtime compensation.

The employer in the letter was a waste management company, and the employees in question were its drivers. The driver earned a base salary of $12 per hour. In addition to their base pay, drivers could earn up to $9.50 per hour under the employer’s “Safety, Job Duties, and Performance” bonus plan. The bonus rewarded behaviors such as “punctuality, attendance, consistency in completing daily safety tasks, driving safety, compliance with traffic laws, proper attire, and performance efficiency.” If a driver met their performance targets during a particular pay period, then the bonus applied to all hours the driver worked during that period.