Employment Law

Georgians Who Seek Redress for Employment-Related Retaliation Must Show Appropriate Connections to Alleged Wrongdoing

May 21, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment retaliation case, the plaintiff must show a certain kind of connection to the defendant – and to the violation of the law that allegedly occurred – in order to move forward with his or her case. Sometimes, this is an easy and obvious step of the litigation process.

Other times, the battle is more difficult. Unless the plaintiff can make this necessary connection, his or her case is likely to fail.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiffs were family members of a woman who worked for the defendant bank during the year 2008. The woman was employed as a personal assistant to the bank’s president and CEO during that time. After she was fired, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the president/CEO had sexually harassed her and then retaliated against her for complaining about the harassment. The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant bank was that it had taken adverse action against them in retaliation for the former employee’s protected conduct. (The plaintiffs had various business relationships with the defendant.)

Georgia Employees’ FLSA Claims to be Amended in Attempt at Class Certification

May 14, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In attempting to assert an Atlanta employment law claim, it important that the plaintiff include the appropriate allegations and requests for relief. Sometimes, however, more information becomes available as the case develops, such that a plaintiff may attempt to file an “amended complaint” to include the new information or an updated demand for relief.

Depending upon the court rules and the status of the proceedings, the plaintiff may or may not need the court’s permission to file an amended complaint. Likewise, the defendant may wish to alter its answer. A timely request to amend the pleadings is important, regardless of whether it is the plaintiff or the defendant who is making the request.

An amended pleading may appear to give the parties more than a single “bite at the apple,” so to speak. However, there are limitations on what can be accomplished via an amendment, as rules such as the statute of limitations still apply.

Federal Court Remands Georgia Man’s Employment Law Case to State Court Due to Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction

May 8, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Generally speaking, the person who files an Atlanta employment law case gets choose the court (state or federal) in which the matter will ultimately be tried. However, there are some situations in which this is not so.

For instance, the employee may choose to file his or her lawsuit in state court, only to have the employer remove the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (Sometimes, it is possible to have the federal court send the matter back to state court (although this is the exception, not the rule).)

As for the reasons for choosing state court instead of federal court (or wanting a case removed to federal court after it has been filed in state court), the reasons tend to be very specific to an individual situation. In one case, there may be a belief that one court or the other may yield a result that is more favorable, or it could be that one court has a lengthy backlog of cases such that it will take substantially longer to get to trial. Location and convenience (or the added expense of inconvenience) may also factor in.

Georgia Woman’s Employment Discrimination Case Against State Board of Regents and Former Supervisor Dismissed as Untimely

April 23, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment discrimination case, there is a relatively short window for the filing of a complaint against the offending employer. If this requirement is not met, the plaintiff’s case will likely fail.

Thus, an important first step in holding an employer accountable under the law is to consult an attorney who can help you get started on your claim. An individual who is not represented by counsel is at a huge disadvantage in court, as it is almost guaranteed that the employer will be represented by legal counsel who is well-versed in the laws and procedures applicable in these types of cases.

Facts of the Case

In an employment discrimination case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, the plaintiff averred that she had been discriminated against by the defendants (a state board of regents and her former supervisor), on account of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the plaintiff, she relocated from one campus to another but continued to experience discrimination in the terms and conditions of her employment. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She received a right to sue notice on November 21, 2017. She then filed suit against the defendants in federal district court on February 20, 2018. Later, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, ending the plaintiff’s cause of action on July 29, 2019. Notably, the plaintiff was not represented by counsel at that time.

Schoolteacher’s Claim Brought Pursuant to the Georgia Whistleblower Act Dismissed as Untimely

April 9, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

When an employee, former employee, or potential employee seeks to assert an Atlanta employment law claim, he or she must do so in a timely fashion. The exact time for the filing of a claim is dependent upon both the applicable law and the factual circumstances at hand.

For instance, in a “whistleblower” suit filed under Georgia state law, a formal complaint must be filed within one year of the date that the plaintiff discovered the alleged retaliation (but no longer than three years after the retaliatory action). Other factors may come into play as well, but this one-year limitations period will control in most cases.

If the plaintiff in a potential state law whistleblower suit does not take the appropriate legal action in a timely fashion, it is likely that his or her case will be dismissed. In such a situation, he or she may have no legal remedy, despite the employer’s retaliatory conduct.

Georgia Appeals Court Agrees that Termination of Tennis Manager Accused of Sexual Abuse of Teen Was Not Unlawful

March 5, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An Atlanta wrongful termination lawsuit can arise from several different situations. Among these are cases in which someone is fired because of his or her gender, sex, or race, even if some other, superficial reason is alleged by the employer. Terminations based on a worker’s pregnancy or disability can also trigger a wrongful discharge case, as can the firing of someone who has been hurt on the job or been absent for jury duty. There are some situations, however, in which a termination – though alleged to be wrongful by the discharged worker – is upheld as lawful by the court system.

This can happen when an employer has a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for letting a worker go. A case appealed to the intermediate state appeals court recently explored whether an accusation of sexual misconduct might fall under this category, even though there had not yet been a conviction concerning the allegations.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appellate case, the plaintiff was a man who worked as a tennis manager for the defendant county. In April 2018, however, the plaintiff was the target of a lawsuit in which it was asserted that he had sexually abused a teenage girl at the defendant’s tennis facilities. Although the plaintiff denied the allegations, the defendant placed him on paid administrative leave for a period of about four months. Thereafter, the plaintiff was moved to “unpaid suspension” for another four months. Thereafter, he was terminated; as grounds, the defendant stated that the plaintiff’s excessive absences had resulted in his termination.
Continue reading ›

Georgia Court of Appeals Addresses Injunctive Relief in Dispute Between Former Employee and Employer Regarding Restrictive Covenants

March 16, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The validity of a covenant not to compete or other restriction in an employment agreement can be the focus of an Atlanta employment lawsuit. Typically, the employee urges the court to find that the agreement was not valid for a particular reason, such as being overly broad in its terms.

The employer, by contrast, tends to advocate for a finding that the employee is bound by the terms of the agreement, regardless of their scope. As in most disputes between employees and employers, the issue will likely be decided by a state or federal court judge if the parties are unable to resolve the matter between themselves.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who began working for the defendant asset management firm in 2008. At the time that he was hired, the plaintiff signed an employment agreement. In 2010, the plaintiff signed a new employment agreement, which superseded the 2008 agreement. Several restrictive covenants were contained in the 2010 agreement, including a non-compete clause, a prohibition on soliciting or hiring the defendant’s current or former employees, and a prohibition on soliciting certain entities who had done business with the defendant.

Former Employee Compelled to Answer Discovery Requests in Employment Law Case Filed in Federal Court Sitting in Georgia

March 10, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment case, both the plaintiff and the defendant have certain responsibilities. One of the plaintiff’s responsibilities is to answer, as fully, thoroughly, and honestly as possible, any legitimate requests for discovery promulgated by the defendant. This typically includes the names of potential witnesses, a description of the damages claimed by the plaintiff, and factual information such as the plaintiff’s employment history.

While defendant employers do sometimes ask for more information than they are entitled to, it is the court’s job to “reign them in,” so to speak, if and when the plaintiff files an objection. If an objection is not timely made, the plaintiff will likely be compelled to answer the requests, even if they are arguably overbroad. Lawsuits in federal court are placed on a fairly rigid pre-trial discovery deadline, and failure to provide appropriate responses within the time ordered by the court can, ultimately, cause the plaintiff’s case to be dismissed and his or her legal rights to be forfeited.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, the plaintiff was a former employee of the defendant city. After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to assert certain employment law claims, the defendant served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the plaintiff. The plaintiff allegedly failed to answer these discovery requests in a timely and/or thorough manner despite multiple requests by the defendants that she do so, and the defendants filed a motion to compel. The motion was withdrawn, and an amended scheduling order was entering giving the plaintiff additional time in which to respond. After the new deadline had come and went, the defendant was granted permission to refile its motion to compel.

Georgia Supreme Court Holds That Punitive Damages Are Potentially Available in Abusive Litigation Lawsuit Stemming from Employee’s Firing

February 20, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

As the saying goes, “There are two sides to a story.” Generally speaking, this is true. However, in an Atlanta wrongful termination case, there may be only one truth, and “the other side of the story” may simply be the opposing party’s attempt to avoid liability.

While the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit has the burden of proving certain things in order to recover money damages or other relief, the opposing party also has certain responsibilities – including defending the case in a manner consistent with the applicable laws, rules, and regulations. When a defendant refuses to play by the rules, causing his or her opponent to waste time, money, and resources in pursuing his or her legal remedies, there can be serious repercussions, including having to pay the other litigant’s attorney fees and costs and, sometimes, punitive damages.

Facts of the Case

In a wrongful termination case recently considered on appeal by the Supreme Court of Georgia, the plaintiff was a man who was terminated from his job in 2012. He filed suit against his former employer, alleging that the employer had breached a severance agreement and other provisions in his contract of employment. While the litigation was pending, the employer’s business was bought by another company, who was then substituted as a corporate successor-in-interest. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that there was no basis for the employer withholding payment to him. The plaintiff was later awarded attorney fees and litigation expenses, with the trial court holding the employer and its successor jointly and severally liable.

Federal Employment Discrimination Claim Falls Due to Lack of Proof of Different Treatment to Similarly Situated Employee

January 22, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

To prove an Atlanta employment discrimination claim, the plaintiff must do more than simply allege that he or she was treated unfairly due to his or her age, race, gender, or other protected status. Rather, there must be competent evidence to show that the plaintiff suffered adverse treatment but a similarly situated employee who was not part of the protected class that included the plaintiff was treated differently. Without this important evidence, the plaintiff’s case will most likely be dismissed before trial.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent federal court case was an African-American man who was terminated from his job as a patient care technician at the defendant hospital after a brief physical altercation with a psychiatric patient. According to the defendant, the reason for the termination was that the plaintiff had violated the defendant’s policy against inappropriate behavior toward, or discourteous treatment of, a patient. In the defendant’s view, the plaintiff “went beyond what [was] appropriate during the altercation and was rightfully terminated. The plaintiff maintained, however, that he had been the victim of unlawful employment discrimination on account of his race.

The federal district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, agreeing that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) insomuch as he failed to demonstrate a situation in which the defendant had treated a similarly situated employee outside of the plaintiff’s protected class in a more favorable manner. The district court agreed with the defendant and granted its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.