Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

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.

What Employees Do (and Do Not) Need to Say (or Do) to Satisfy the FMLA’s Notice Requirement

January 9, 2026 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The circumstances surrounding employees who need Family and Medical Leave Act leave are not necessarily black-and-white. An employee in need of FMLA leave may also have a history of attendance problems at work. Even if the employee’s absenteeism is extensive and has the employee on the edge of termination — perhaps especially in these scenarios — a wise employer will proceed with extreme caution to ensure the employee’s absence is not covered by the FMLA before taking punitive disciplinary action. As with any matter, part of “proceeding with caution” means getting knowledgeable legal advice from an experienced Atlanta FMLA retaliation lawyer.

The FMLA case of a public bus driver clearly highlights this issue.

The driver, I.W., had sickle cell anemia. The employer knew about the condition as the driver had disclosed it when the employer hired him in 2018 and discussed the disease with several of his supervisors.

The Various Pathways to Success in a Federal Retaliation or Discrimination Case

December 30, 2025 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A Georgia deputy sheriff recently won a renewed opportunity to pursue his retaliation case after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the deputy’s employer. The employee’s success is a reminder that employees have multiple avenues for making out a retaliation or discrimination claim. If you have questions about federal retaliation or discrimination claims, be sure to contact an experienced Atlanta employment retaliation lawyer.

The deputy, A.I., began working for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office in 2020. Shortly thereafter, the deputy started working a special assignment at a local park. One of the other officers assigned to the detail was E.J., a lieutenant and the commander of the SWAT team, which A.I. hoped to join.

According to the deputy and others, the lieutenant frequently made racist remarks related to the deputy’s ethnicity (Arabic) and national origin (Iraqi), including crude comments about terrorism, bombs, sand, and A.I.’s English language proficiency.

How One Restaurant’s Tip Pool Ran Afoul of the Fair Labor Standards Act

December 23, 2025 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Many employees in the restaurant industry rely on tips for a significant portion of their earnings. Many of these workers are also familiar with the process of pooling (or sharing) tips among all the tipped workers at their restaurant. Employers cannot simply construct tip pools however they want; federal law contains several restrictions on how employers pool tips. Whether you are an employer or an employee, if you have questions about the legality of your tip pool, contact a knowledgeable Atlanta tip-pooling lawyer for reliable answers.

According to a recent news release from the federal Wage and Hour Division, a Southern California restaurant was operating an illegal tip pool.

As background, the Fair Labor Standards Act does not set a limit on the percentage or amount of each employee’s contribution in valid mandatory tip pools. Instead, a tip pool’s validity depends on whether or not the employer takes the tip credit.