Employment Law

Dismissal of Pro Se Litigant’s Employment Law Case Provides Lesson to Georgia Residents on the Perils of Self-Representation

December 9, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The need for quality legal representation when dealing with matters such as an Atlanta employment discrimination case cannot be overstated. While a plaintiff does, technically, have the right to self-representation, this is never a good idea.

The same rules, laws, and procedures apply to those representing themselves as apply to professionally trained and highly skilled legal advocates who earn their living in the courtroom. Attorneys spend years learning the law and must take a rigorous bar examination in order to be licensed to represent others in legal matters. The law, including state and federal statutes regarding employment law, is ever evolving, and it can be challenging to keep up with the latest developments even for experienced counsel. Someone who is not professionally educated in the law is at a serious disadvantage.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent federal appellate case was a woman who filed suit against the defendant highway patrol department and her former supervisor, asserting claims for civil rights violations and employment discrimination during events that occurred in 2005 and/or 2006. The trial court dismissed the woman’s complaint, holding that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations, res judicata (two previous lawsuits concerning the same conduct had previously been dismissed), and sovereign immunity. The plaintiff sought review from the court of appeals.

Georgia Woman Must Arbitrate Age and Disability Claims, According to Federal Court

November 7, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Employees who believe that they have been discriminated against due to age by a current, former, or potential employer may assume that they will eventually have their day in court if they file an Atlanta age discrimination claim.

While the United States Constitution does guarantee the right to a jury trial in some situations, the right to have a jury determine the issues in a civil case is not universal. For one thing, an employee many be asked to forfeit his or her right to a jury trial as a condition of employment.

If the worker signs an arbitration agreement prior to going to work for a certain employer, it is highly likely that any disputes between the parties will eventually be settled through arbitration rather than litigation.

Summary Judgment Granted to Employer in Georgia Man’s Retaliatory Discharge Suit

October 30, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Last week, we told you about a Georgia retaliatory discharge claim. A woman was allegedly fired in response to her husband (who worked for the same employer) speaking out against workplace discrimination of a job applicant. As that case explained, the husband, too, had filed a claim against the employer, attempting to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The outcome of the wife’s case hinged on her husband’s case, insomuch as he was the primary actor against whom the alleged retaliation was directed.

Facts of the Case

In the husband’s companion case, he alleged that he was the vice president of sales and marketing of the defendant company in 2017 when an advertising manager resigned. A woman who worked for a local media group expressed interest in the job. Ultimately, she met with the plaintiff and submitted a resume to his wife, who worked in human resources. Unfortunately, the woman’s appearance (she was allegedly wearing tight, rather revealing clothing during the meeting) became a quick topic of discussion in the workplace. After a co-worker called the woman “a whore” and suggested that management would never allow a “bombshell like that” to work there, the plaintiff insisted that discrimination based on the woman’s appearance would be unlawful. (In opposition to the version of events presented by the plaintiff, the defendant company offered testimony by other employees who testified that they had been embarrassed by the plaintiff’s comments about the “well endowed” and “very, very, very well built” job applicant.)

Ultimately, the plaintiff and his wife were both terminated from their employment, and the plaintiff was issued a notice of suit rights by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

Georgia Poultry Farm Granted Summary Judgment in Legally Blind Job Applicant’s ADA Suit

October 9, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted with the purpose of ending discrimination against individuals with disabilities by making it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.

In order to assert a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must be able to prove that he or she is disabled, is a qualified individual, and was subjected to unlawful discrimination due to his or her disability.

If you believe that you have a claim under the Act, you should talk to an Atlanta disability discrimination attorney about filing a claim. There are time limits in such cases, and it is important that you assert your legal rights in a timely fashion.

Georgia Police Officer’s Employment Discrimination Claims Should Have Survived Summary Judgment

August 22, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

When a veteran employee is suddenly let go from a job, it is not unusual for him or her to at least consider the possibility of filing an Atlanta employment discrimination claim. This is especially so if the employee believes that he or she was unlawfully let go based on a disability or because of his or her age, race, gender, or religion.

Those who think they may have an employment discrimination claim should talk to an attorney as soon as possible, as there are deadlines in such cases that, if not complied with, may result in dismissal of the employee’s claims when they are eventually filed.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a female African-American police detective who was abruptly terminated by the defendant city after 10 years of service. The chief of police of the city was also named as a defendant in the suit. The “ostensible reason” for the termination was that the plaintiff was absent without leave. However, the defendant had, only a few days prior to the termination, placed the plaintiff on indefinite administrative leave pending resolution of the issue of whether or not she could safely be subjected to a Taser Shock or exposed to pepper spray, given her physical condition (she suffered a heart attack in 2009).

Federal Appellate Court for Florida, Georgia, and Alabama Affirms Dismissal of Worker’s Employment-Related Claims

August 15, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There are many ways in which an employer can violate an employee’s rights under state, federal, or constitutional laws. However, not every disagreement about matters in the workplace is actionable in court.

Most Atlanta employment law cases go through a lengthy pre-trial phase, in which an employer may seek dismissal of all or some of the employee’s claims if the employer believes that the employee’s claim(s) is not viable. The trial court makes the initial decision in such situations, but an appellate court may eventually weigh in if one or both parties seeks further review. If you feel your rights may have been violated by your employer, it is important to discuss the matter with an Atlanta employment law attorney.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the circuit court that hears appeals from federal district courts located in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama), the plaintiff was a man who brought multiple claims against the defendant employer in federal court. These claims included retaliation claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), (Title VII); defamation claims; alleged violations of the Federal Privacy Act; and claims that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Georgia Woman’s Suit Against Employer Was Not Judicially Estopped for Failure to Disclose Potential Claim in Bankruptcy Proceeding

July 23, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An Atlanta employment law case can have many nuances and potential complications. Thus, it is critical that the plaintiff in such an action receive dependable, accurate legal advice. If you think you may have a claim against your employer, you should talk to an attorney right away. A lawyer who is experienced in handling litigation between employees and their current, former, or potential employers can help steer you through the complex process of asserting your legal rights.

Sometimes, an employee may have more than one claim, or an employment-related claim may affect other, pending litigation. Hence, it is important to let your attorney know about litigation to which you may be a current or potential party.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who sent ante litem notice of a whistleblower claim to the defendant county in August 2016, informing it of a claim that may have arisen as early as September 2015 pertaining to alleged retaliation and demotion for her refusal to succumb to the demands of a certain county commissioner to use an amphitheater (which she managed, on the county’s behalf) for his private gain. Her lawsuit followed a few weeks thereafter. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy (which she filed in 2014) was proceeding in federal court.
Continue reading ›

Georgia Employee Was Entitled to Pursue Quantum Meruit Pay, Even Though His Employment Contract Was Too Vague to Enforce

June 5, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Each Atlanta employment law case is unique, with its own set of facts and issues. In addition to matters such as sexual harassment and employment discrimination, the issue of compensation is fairly common.

Disputes about an employee’s pay can occur at many different pay levels, from employees who maintain that they were not paid even the federally mandated minimum wage to professionals who claim that they were not compensated according to a written or oral agreement between them and the business for which they worked. At the end of the day, everyone – from the lowest paid to the most highly compensated individuals – want a fair wage for the work they have done.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who had an unpaid clerking position with the defendant law firm while he was attending law school. After obtaining his license, the plaintiff accepted a job as a “contract associate” with the firm. Via an employment agreement (in the form of a letter), the law firm agreed to compensate the plaintiff for his services by paying him a part of the fee earned by the firm upon the resolution of cases in which he was involved. The exact amount of compensation was not specified but was to be determined on a case by case basis.

Georgia Supreme Court Sets Forth Procedure for Evaluating Motion to Strike “Scandalous” Allegations in Lawsuit Involving Breakup of Medical Practice

April 2, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

It’s been said that “breaking up is hard to do.” While this can certainly be true of romantic relationships, it can also be true of professional Georgia business partnerships. Just as former spouses and romantic partners can go from being in love to holding one another in contempt, business relationships, too, can deteriorate to the point where parting company is the only workable solution. Of course, sometimes one (or both) parties to a breakup holds onto the hostilities and acrimonious feelings, causing the situation to worsen over time.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the “contentious relationship” of two former business partners (doctors, who worked together as partners in an Atlanta medical practice) resulted in litigation that made its way all the was to the state’s highest court. The plaintiff complaint alleged causes of action for (among other things) civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, slander and oral defamation, and tortious interference with business relations.

After the defendants filed a motion to strike matter from the plaintiff’s pleading on the ground that it was “scandalous,” the trial court struck approximately 15 paragraphs of the plaintiff’s complaint. The intermediate court of appeals reversed most of that order, and the defendants appealed. Continue reading ›

Georgia Appeals Court Vacates Attorney Fee Award in Covenant Not to Compete Case

March 20, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

It is not unusual for a potential employee to be asked to sign a covenant not to compete as part of the hiring process in certain industries, particularly those involving sales. These agreements are clearly designed to favor the employer, not the employee, and are designed to prevent the employee from “stealing business” from the employer by luring customers to another company should the employment relationship end.

If the employee leaves his or her employment and the employer believes that the covenant not to compete has been violated, it may file suit against the employee, seeking injunctive relief, attorney fees, and other possible remedies. If you have a question that relates to a covenant not to compete, reach out to an Atlanta employment law attorney.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a building supply company that sought to enforce a contractual agreement entered into between it and the defendant, a former employee. In September 2017, the trial court entered an order in the plaintiff’s favor, ordering the defendant to cease competing against it as a salesman (or in other capacities) for a period of two years. Less than two months later, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt, claiming that the defendant had disobeyed the court’s order.