An Atlanta employment discrimination case can be complex, with multiple allegations and several different theories of recovery.
For example, a worker may allege that he or she has been treated in a way that runs afoul of state or federal anti-discrimination laws.
The employee may further allege a claim for retaliation if he or she reported the initial act of discrimination and, thereafter, was the victim of adverse employment action (such as being passed over for a promotion) as a result.
An Atlanta employment lawsuit can arise in many different contexts. The legal remedies that may be available to a person whose employer has acted in violation of the law can vary, depending upon the circumstances. It is important to note that the plaintiff in such a case has the burden of providing credible evidence of the employer’s alleged wrongdoing, or else his or her claim will likely fail.
Facts of the Case
In a recent federal case, the plaintiff was an African-American female police officer who filed suit against the defendants, a city manager and a police chief, seeking relief under three federal statutes (42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985) due to her termination for actions during a traffic stop involving a personal acquaintance. At first, the plaintiff was only placed on administrative leave so that an investigation could be performed. An outside agency then investigated the matter and concluded that the plaintiff had violated the standard operating procedure of the police department for which she had worked for some 15 years. More specifically, the agency determined that the plaintiff may have violated a procedure governing professional image and may have committed an obstruction of the deputies involved in the traffic stop. At some point after the investigation, the plaintiff was terminated.
The defendants sought summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims against them.
Having knowledgeable and assertive legal representation in an Atlanta employment discrimination case is crucial. Although the law allows those who choose to represent themselves the freedom to do so, this is almost never a good idea.
Unfortunately, a Georgia woman (who, ironically, worked for the court system against which she attempted to bring suit) found this out the hard way. Because she had named the wrong defendant in her lawsuit, her case was dismissed.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff in a recent case was an employee of a certain county juvenile court. Choosing to represent herself rather than hire an attorney, the employee filed suit in federal court against the defendant, the consolidated city-county government of the town and county in which the juvenile court where the plaintiff worked was located. In her complaint against the defendant, the plaintiff alleged that she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination and sought various legal remedies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 200e-17.
When you experience what you believe to be workplace discrimination, there may be many possible wrinkles that could affect your ability to pursue or win your case. Each case comes with its own unique nuances, which is why it is so important to have an experienced Tennessee discrimination attorney on your side who can take each of the unique elements of your case and help you address each of them to achieve a favorable result. Continue reading ›
There are many different ways in which an employer can commit illegal discrimination in the conduct of its business. One of the more recently enacted statutory prohibitions was passed into law with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. That law bars employers from, among other things, making hiring, firing, promotion, pay, or privileges decisions based upon an employee’s genetic information. One case brought in federal court here in Georgia under this new law made national headlines back in 2015. Today, that 2015 ruling and the legal steps that followed it more recently serve as clear reminders of the multi-faceted aspects of discrimination litigation and the importance of having knowledgeable and diligent Georgia discrimination attorneys on your side. Continue reading ›
As employers, most businesses are concerned about treating employees in a manner that could give rise to a discrimination lawsuit. This includes how the employer handles the filling of open positions. However, what happens when an employee raises a claim of discrimination based upon not receiving a job that you, as an employer, did not even know that she was interested in? A recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a case that began here in Georgia explored that question, which is just one of many scenarios in which experienced Georgia racial discrimination attorneys can help you in a discrimination case. Continue reading ›
Whether you are an employer or an employee, if you are involved in a Georgia pregnancy discrimination action, it pays to know what the law requires of you to succeed. As an employer, you’ll likely need to be able to give the court a valid, legitimate, and non-discriminatory reason for the action you took. As an employee, you’ll need to establish that the reason the employer cited was actually a pretext for discrimination. In one ruling recently upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the employer won because the employee couldn’t prove that the employer’s assertions of substandard performance were merely pretextual. Continue reading ›
As an employer, sometimes a key to defending successfully against a disability discrimination claim is having thorough proof that you engaged a disabled employee clearly and consistently throughout the entire process regarding accommodations as well as essential job functions. Experienced Georgia disability discrimination attorneys can help you determine what your rights and obligations are. In a recent case of a city worker in Florida, the employer won because the employee sought an accommodation allowing telecommuting, and the employer was able to establish that regular, full-time, and in-office work attendance was an essential function of the employee’s job. Continue reading ›
The boundary lines separating what is not actionable versus what is impermissible employment discrimination have continued to shift and evolve. Regarding a strongly pro-employee ruling a California court entered in 2016 interpreting that state’s employment discrimination statute, one author wrote that the new opinion was a warning to employers: don’t be a jerk. (The author used a word similar to jerk, but a little stronger.) In Tennessee, however, it is important to understand that the law is different here, and the mere fact, by itself, that a supervisory employee acts like a jerk or a bully or is generally extremely difficult may not necessarily be a winning case for the supervisor’s subordinate employee. An experienced Tennessee hostile work environment lawyer can help you, whether you’re an employer or employee, analyze your case and plot a smart path for you in these and other potential hostile work environment situations. Continue reading ›
In an important new ruling on the issue of discrimination against breastfeeding employees, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s decision that a police department’s refusal to provide a breastfeeding officer with a satisfactory ballistic vest amounted to a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and in the process, it upheld a $161,000 damages award for the employee. Discrimination against breastfeeding employees is an emerging and evolving area of the law, and, if you think you have an issue related to breastfeeding discrimination, you should promptly reach out to a knowledgeable Georgia pregnancy discrimination lawyer. Continue reading ›
Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog