Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

Georgia Workers Enter Into Agreement with Employer to Settle Fair Labor Standards Act Case Claiming Unpaid Overtime

February 7, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There was a lot of talk during the recent election cycle about the possibility of raising the minimum wage. Whether or not this will happen remains to be seen, but, in the meantime, there are a number of state and federal laws aimed at ensuring that workers are treated fairly when it comes to pay.

One such law requires that employees who put in more than 40 hours per week are entitled to be paid an overtime wage of one and a half times their regular pay. Not all workers qualify for overtime pay, but the vast majority do.

If you believe that you qualify for overtime pay, but your employer has not been paying you time and a half for your weekly hours over the 40-hour threshold, you should talk to an Atlanta wage and hour attorney. Be mindful that there are deadlines for filing claims for overtime pay, and claims not timely filed may be deemed waived.

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 In 2010, the plaintiff signed a new employment agreement, which superseded the 2008 agreement.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 Police Officer’s Retaliatory Discharge Claim Failed Due to Lack of Proof that Firing Was Pretextual

February 27, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An Atlanta wage and hour claim has the potential to anger the employer who is accused of wrongdoing, possibly subjecting the complaining employee to further misconduct in the workplace (assuming that he or she is still employed following the claim). Of course, it is important to note that it can be a violation of state and federal law for an employer to intentionally retaliate against a worker simply because he or she has asserted his or her legal rights in a court of law or other tribunal.

However, not every complaint of unlawful retaliation will be successful in court, as the employer does have some defenses, including an adverse employment action based on a legitimate reason rather than in retaliation; notably, in order for this defense to relieve it of liability for wrongful termination, the employer must be able to show that it was not merely pretextual.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently discussed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, the plaintiff was a former police officer whose employment was terminated by the defendant city in 2018. The plaintiff filed suit in federal court, alleging that the defendant had violated her legal rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 28 U.S.C. 201, et seq. by engaging in unlawful workplace retaliation after the parties had settled a separate lawsuit in late 2017.

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.

Georgia Woman’s Employment Law Claims Dismissed by Federal Court

February 14, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There are several types of claims that may be possible in at Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuit. First, the plaintiff may allege that he or she was not hired, was fired, or was not promoted because of his or her race, color, gender, age, or disability. The plaintiff may further allege that he or she made a report of such discrimination and that, as a result, was the victim of some type of unlawful retaliation in the workplace.

It is important to note that the plaintiff has the burden of proof in most types of civil cases, including those involving employment law issues. Thus, it is important for the plaintiff to hire an experienced attorney who can help him or her review the facts, gather evidence, and prepare the case for trial.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was an African American woman who worked for the defendant employer from June 2013 to December 2015. During the first few months of her employment, the plaintiff and one co-worker were the only employees in the defendant’s headquarters. The plaintiff, who worked in community relations, reported directly to the other employee. After a while, additional employees were brought into the headquarters, and the plaintiff was given an option to whether to stay in the same department or transfer to a different department. The plaintiff chose to remain in the same role, but, according to the defendant, certain “performance issues” arose, and the plaintiff was terminated from her employment.

Georgia Woman’s Age and Race Discrimination Lawsuit is Dismissed on Summary Judgment, Affirmed on Appeal

February 6, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In most Atlanta employment discrimination lawsuits, the employee and the employer disagree sharply as to why the employer made an adverse employment decision, such as terminating, not hiring, or not promoting the employee. The employee believes the decision was based on an unlawful discriminatory reason, such as his or her age or race, while the employer may offer legally legitimate reasons for its actions, arguing that another candidate was more qualified, or the employee had a history of misconduct in the workplace. The courts are charged with deciding, based on the evidence offered by the respective parties, which version of events is more credible.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was a white female who filed suit against the defendants, a county and the county’s school district, alleging that the school district had wrongfully refused to hire her as an assistant principal on account of her race and her age. The plaintiff had served as the dean of students at a charter school in the defendant county from 2013 until late 2014, when the school district abolished the plaintiff’s dean position and, in its place, created an assistant principal job. The plaintiff applied for the job of assistant principal, but she was not hired. Instead, a younger, African American woman was hired as assistant principal, and the plaintiff was transferred to a middle school art teacher job.

The school district filed a motion for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the defendant’s motion and entered summary judgment in its favor as to the plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as her age discrimination claims. The plaintiff sought appellate review of the district court’s decision.

Employment Discrimination Lawsuits in Georgia Must Be Properly Worded or Risk Dismissal

January 29, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The process of filing an Atlanta employment discrimination claim can be a complex endeavor. For those who are not familiar with the legal system, there are likely to be many questions. “Where do I file my claim? How long do I have to take legal action? What, specifically, do I need to say in my pleadings?” When a claim is not properly filed or does not contain the necessary allegations, the court is likely to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. When a case is dismissed, this usually means that the plaintiff’s case is “dead.” Unless an appellate court overturns the ruling, the plaintiff will not receive any compensation from the defendant, nor will the employer be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff to his or her position.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent employment discrimination lawsuit was an adjunct professor at the defendant college. He filed suit against the college and its board of trustees, alleging that the defendants had engaged in racially discriminatory hired practices by preferentially hiring Hispanic applicants for its physician assistant program in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The college filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that he had failed to state a claim. The plaintiff then filed several amended complaints, each of which essentially reiterated his allegations in the original complaint. Ultimately, the federal district dismissed the plaintiff’s case, and he appealed.

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.

Federal Court Agrees that Litigation, Not Arbitration, is Proper Under Circumstances of Atlanta Man’s Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

January 16, 2020 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There has been a trend in recent years for certain defendants, including some employers accused of discrimination and retaliatory action in the workplace, to seek arbitration, rather than litigation of Atlanta employment discrimination cases. While there are some situations in which arbitration might be an acceptable alternative to litigation, most plaintiffs prefer to have their day in court. Sometimes, it is necessary to fight for this right, especially when paperwork has allegedly been signed agreeing to arbitration as a condition of employment. In disputed cases, it is up to the court to decide which remedy is appropriate.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unpublished decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiff was a man who had worked two short terms as a seasonal employee of the defendant store (both terms of employment occurred during October through January, one in 2015-2016, and the other in 2016-2017). According to the plaintiff’s complaint, he sought permanent employment with the defendant, but this request was denied, as were his other attempts to become a regular, full-time employee of the defendant.

The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, asserting that the defendant had refused to engage him in regular employment due to his race, gender, age, and national origin, as well as in retaliation for allegations of discrimination that he made during his seasonal employment. The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses that the plaintiff allegedly accepted during the outset of his periods of seasonal employment. The district court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.