FMLA Category Archives — Page 5 of 5 — Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog Published by Atlanta, Georgia Employment Lawyers

Eleventh Circuit Decides Employer Lacked Knowledge of Employee’s Disability

August 5, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A nursing home employee, who was pursuing her employer for multiple forms of discrimination and retaliation, lost in her effort to revive her disability discrimination claim on appeal. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that an employer’s mere knowledge that an employee had visited a doctor and that the doctor had advised the patient she could not return to work “until further notice” was not enough to prove that the employer knew the employee had a disability.

The employee, Portia Surtain, worked at Hamlin Place of Boynton Beach, a nursing home in South Florida. During her employment, Surtain submitted a request for medical leave. The employer, aware that Surtain had visited a doctor for “unknown health reasons” and that the doctor had advised her to stay away from work until further notice, terminated the employee.

Federal Appeals Court Allows Georgia Schoolteacher to Pursue FMLA Claim Following Termination

July 8, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued a ruling that will likely make it easier for Georgia public school employees to pursue lawsuits against their employers for violations of federal employment laws like the Family and Medical Leave Act. The ruling concluded that public school districts are not “arms of the state” government, which means that they are not immune from federal employment actions, such as the FMLA case launched by a Georgia high school teacher who was terminated for her use of FMLA leave to deal with the effects of her sickle cell anemia.

The case involved the termination of Zaneta Lightfoot from her job with the Henry County School District south of Atlanta. Lightfoot began as an English and drama teacher, and cheerleading coach, at Woodland High School in 2007. The teacher had sickle cell anemia, which caused her to experience bouts of extreme pain and weakness. Lightfoot asked for and received permission to take intermittent periods off from work under FMLA when her condition made working untenable during the 2010-11 school year.

Definition of “Spouse” Under FMLA Amended to Include Same-Sex Couples

March 18, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A new rule issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) amends the Family Medical Leave Act’s (FMLA) definition of “spouse” to include same-sex couples married in states where same-sex marriage is legally recognized.

Under the new rule, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 825.102 and 825.122(b), two people are married for purposes of the FMLA if the jurisdiction in which they were married recognizes them as legally married. The old rule looked to the place of the couple’s residence, which meant that same-sex couples who resided in Georgia and Tennessee were not currently eligible for FMLA leave, even if they were married in one of the growing number of states that has legalized same-sex marriage.

The new rule also contemplates couples married outside the United States. A same-sex marriage or same-sex, common-law marriage originating in another country will be recognized under the FMLA so long as the couple could have been married or common-law married in at least one U.S. state.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Georgia Truck Driver’s Termination Did Not Violate ADA, FMLA

February 11, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A trucking company that fired a truck driver who had been diagnosed with alcohol dependency did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), according to a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling.

The plaintiff in the case was employed in Georgia by the defendant, a trucking company, as an over-the-road driver. In 2010, the plaintiff requested and was granted an FMLA leave of absence to care for a “serious health problem” after talking with his personal physician about his alcohol issues. Upon completion of a 30-day program at an inpatient substance abuse facility, the plaintiff’s physician certified that he was fit to return to work. A week after his discharge from the treatment program, the plaintiff was fired. The reason given was that his clinical diagnosis of chronic “alcohol dependence” made him unfit for his job according to company policy and DOT regulations.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful termination under the ADA and interference and retaliation under the FMLA. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

Rights and Risks When it Comes to Pregnant Employees

October 22, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

With perks like arcades, ball pits, laundry services, round-the-clock meals, and pretty much anything else it takes to coddle energetic young employees not quite ready to assume full adulthood, Silicon Valley firms are legendary for offering workers anything it takes to keep them at their desks instead of tending to an outside life. The latest entry in the “They get what?” panoply of benefits for high-tech workers is egg freezing, currently at Apple and Facebook and, presumably, to be adopted by more companies if it proves popular. While it’s being touted as a generous perk worth around $20,000, there’s no shortage of fierce criticism that it’s simply a manipulative way to extract longer, more focused efforts from younger employees the companies don’t want to see distracted by families and greater work-life balance. (It’s worth noting that, in some cases, the offer is extended to spouses of employees, so it’s not just the female workers who are affected by the new benefit).

While the debate about whether such a program assists or coerces delayed family planning is new enough that it should provide plenty of back and forth for quite some time, a much more established consideration for women of childbearing age is how a pregnancy would affect their jobs. Despite some longstanding laws designed to protect pregnant workers’ livelihoods, there is often a good deal of confusion for both them and their employers regarding rights and obligations.

Federal Judge in Tennessee Substantially Reduces Attorney’s Fees in Wage and Hour Case

April 4, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A federal court in Tennessee’s ruling on attorney’s fees should be of concern to anyone who wishes to bring a wage and hour lawsuit. In Stewart v. CUS Nashville, LLC, Judge Trauger of the Middle District of Tennessee found that since the named plaintiff did not succeed in proving all of her claims, her attorneys should receive just 30% of their requested fees.

The case began in 2011, when plaintiff Misty Blu Stewart filed a complaint on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, both past and current, of the “Coyote Ugly Saloons” nationwide. She claimed that waitresses and bartenders, as a matter of company policy and in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), were forced to share their tip pool with security guards, and also to work off of the clock without compensation. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the tip pool claims, stating that security guards met the standard of being employees who customarily received tips, and could therefore share in the tip pool.

The case eventually went to trial in April 2013 after an extensive period, during which the court certified a national class of plaintiffs for the tip pool claims and a Tennessee-based class of plaintiffs for the off-the-clock claims. Stewart also filed an amended complaint that added three retaliation claims under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision to the existing claims. Continue reading ›

Tennessee Court of Appeals Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling Against Employee Who Sought Reasonable Accommodation Under the Tennessee Disabilities Act

March 26, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Tennessee Court of Appeals at Jackson recently upheld a summary judgment motion against an employee who had claimed her employer retaliated and interfered with her leave in violation of the Tennessee Disabilities Act.

In Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corporation, Lataynia Jones was an employee at Sharp Electronics Corporation from 1996 until her termination in November 2009. During her time of employment, she was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and, like all union members, covered under a collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement granted employees 140 days of leave, including 56 in addition to the 12 weeks of leave permitted by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Jones was granted leave under the FMLA multiple times beginning September 2003.

In 2008, Jones took 11 days of leave in October, two weeks of leave in November, and then nearly two months from the end of November through January 19, 2009. In September 2009, Jones requested additional leave under the FMLA, stating that she suffered from depression. Her employer approved a leave time from September 20, 2009 through October 19, 2009. However, Jones was advised that after October 19 her leave time under the FMLA would be exhausted, and that she had used 26 days of leave under the collective bargaining agreement. Though she had 30 days of collective bargaining agreement leave remaining, Sharp informed Jones that she would be expected to return to work on October 20, and that any further leave would be at Sharp’s discretion. Continue reading ›

Federal Court in Georgia Dismisses Employee’s Lawsuit for Discrimination, Retaliation

March 12, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A federal judge in Georgia recently dismissed the lawsuit of an employee who claimed that she had been discriminated against due to her gender and retaliated against for taking time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

In Wright v. Aramark Corporation, Tracey Wright was employed by Aramark Corporation and worked at the Albany State University campus. She had originally applied for the position of office manager, but after she was hired, claimed that her position was changed to “office worker” with less pay, despite the fact that she did the work of an office manager until the date of her termination. During her time of employment, she claimed to have been subject to harassment, discrimination, and inappropriate remarks. For example, one co-worker allegedly placed dog bones on her chair to imply that she was a dog. Furthermore, she claimed that her employer failed to promote her, failed to compensate her fairly, knowingly hired and promoted individuals who tended to discriminate against Wright, denied her religious accommodations, and penalized her for complaining against unlawful discrimination. Her employer also violated her rights under the FMLA, reprimanding her for and interfering with her right to take medical leave.

Wright claimed that in addition to violating the FMLA, her employer was liable under Title VII for discrimination, for wrongful termination, and for a violation of the Equal Pay Act. Aramark Corporation and Albany State University responded to her complaints by filing a motion to dismiss, claiming that Albany State University was not Wright’s employer and, as a government entity, could not be sued. Wright responded that Albany State University could be sued under Title VII and was her employer because the stationary used by Aramark stated that Aramark was a component of the university. She also argued that individual supervisors mentioned in the complaint could be held vicariously liable through Title VII.

Federal Court in Georgia Grants Summary Judgment Motion Against Employee Who Claimed Racial Discrimination and FMLA Retaliation

March 5, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In a setback for one employee, a federal district court in Georgia recently ruled against her on a summary judgment motion. Kejar Butler had claimed racial discrimination and retaliation for taking time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

In Butler v. SunTrust Bank, Kejar Butler was an African American woman who began working for SunTrust in January 2005. During the fall of 2011, Butler took eight weeks of leave in order to give birth to her child. At the time, Butler was the assistant branch manager of the Thomasville branch of SunTrust, and during her absence, the position of branch manager became vacant. Butler applied for the position, and upon return from maternity leave, was interviewed along with two other internal candidates. Eventually SunTrust hired a different candidate, a white woman.

The area manager who did the hiring had directly supervised and evaluated both Butler and Heather Barnes, the woman who was hired. During the interview process, he interviewed Barnes in person and Butler by telephone. Following her interview, Butler learned that she would not be getting the manager position due to her poor client service scores and inadequate coaching logs. Butler complained to the SunTrust management, then later went on to file a lawsuit on the grounds of Title VII racial discrimination and retaliation against her for exercising her rights under the FMLA. SunTrust responded by filing a motion for summary judgment.