Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

In Landis v. Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an agreement to arbitrate claims is enforceable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). Although the Sixth Circuit does not have jurisdiction over the courts of Georgia, and a lower-level federal court in Georgia has held to the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit has not yet weighed in on the issue, so the case may be relevant if the issue reaches the Eleventh Circuit.

In the case, Dr. Timothy Landis signed an employment agreement in which he agreed to resolve all disputes related to the agreement through arbitration. During his employment, he was called to military duty in Afghanistan as a member of the Indiana National Guard. Although he contended that the parties had amended the employment agreement prior to his departure for Afghanistan, there was no formal amendment to the agreement. On his return from active duty, the employer refused to honor the alleged revised agreement, demoted Landis, and threatened to fire him if he had any future involvement in the military.

In response, Landis filed an employment discrimination claim under the USERRA, claiming that his employer had discriminated against him based on his military service. The lower court granted the employer’s motion to stay the case and ordered that it be arbitrated based on the arbitration clause contained in the employment agreement, holding that the USERRA did not preempt the arbitration clause.

Continue reading "Agreement to Arbitrate USERRA Discrimination Claim is Enforceable" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

If you’ve recently lost your job, you’re not alone. Recent statistics from the Department of Labor on the level of weekly unemployment compensation claims reveal that the job market is a basket case these days, and that unemployment levels are soaring.

On August 7, the Labor Department announced that new applications for unemployment claims rose to 455,000—the highest level since March 2002. Although the number of new claims announced on August 21 fell to 432,000, claims have been above 400,000 for some time now, a level that most economists consider to be an indicator of recession.

If you’re one of the thousands of Americans who have recently lost their jobs, you don’t have to be just a statistic. Contact one of our employment attorneys to see if we can help you.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: General

Bookmark:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a wonderful law; unfortunately, it has not proven to be easy for employees to win cases under the ADA. A recent bill introduced in the Senate to amend the ADA, if passed, may make it easier for disabled employees to prevail in disability cases.

Senate Bill 3406, entitled the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, would make it easier for an employee to claim a covered disability in a number of ways. It would expand the law’s current definition of “major life activity” to include a “major bodily function” so that if an individual has a serious medical condition that does not directly affect a major life activity, the individual would still be covered by the ADA. Additionally, the bill would make it easier to establish a “regarded as” disability. Under the proposed law, an employee claiming a regarded as disability would only need to show that he or she was regarded as having an impairment—not that the impairment was perceived to be a substantially limiting one. The proposed law would also prevent courts from taking into consideration an individual’s use of medicines and other mitigating measures in the determination of whether or not the individual is disabled.

The bill was sponsored by Senators Tom Harken (D-Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Although the bill was just introduced, and President Bush opposed an earlier, similar piece of legislation that had sought to eliminate the “major life activity” requirement completely from the ADA, the bill has broad-based, bipartisan support and is being co-sponsored by 63 other senators. We’ll keep you posted.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) maintains and periodically updates a Compliance Manual, an internal guide for EEOC enforcement personnel that contains the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII and the other discrimination laws it enforces. Although the Compliance Manual does not have the force of law, it is a very helpful resource for employees and employers as it explains the EEOC’s approach to enforcing the discrimination laws. It also contains recommendations for employees on how to identify discrimination in the workplace and address it, as well as best practices to help employers to prevent discrimination.

The EEOC recently issued an updated section of the Compliance Manual on religious discrimination. According to the EEOC’s press release accompanying the new section, it issued the new section “in response to an increase in charges of religious discrimination, increased religious diversity in the United States, and requests for guidance from stakeholders and agency personnel investigating and litigating claims of religious discrimination.”

Continue reading "EEOC Updates Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Religious Discrimination

Bookmark:

It seems as if the courts are giving birth to a number of important pregnancy discrimination act cases these days. In our last post, we wrote about a case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the court held that a female employee who was fired shortly after having an abortion can assert a claim for sex discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In today’s post, we discuss a case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Hall v. Nalco Co., in which the court held that an infertile female employee who was discharged as a result of taking leaves of absence to undergo infertility treatments can state a claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).

In Hall, the plaintiff, a female employee who suffered from infertility, requested time off from work to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF). The company gave her a month-long leave of absence to have the IVF. Several months after she returned from her leave, she requested an additional leave to undergo another IVF because the first procedure had been unsuccessful. Just after she requested her leave, the company, which was in the process of a reorganization, advised the plaintiff that that she was going to be laid off in connection with the reorganization. Although the company did not tell the plaintiff the specific reason for her discharge, the evidence later revealed that the decision to select her for termination was due to her excessive absenteeism related to her “infertility treatments.”

Continue reading "Female Employee Fired for Having IVF Procedure has Claim for Pregnancy Discrimination" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pregnancy Discrimination

Bookmark:

In a case of first impression from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., the court held that a female employee who was fired less than a week after having an abortion has a claim for discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Plaintiff worked as a graphic designer for a used car insurer. About a year after she was hired, she learned she was pregnant and told her supervisor, who was also a part-owner of the company. Due to some problems with her pregnancy, she requested time off to take some medical tests, which the company approved. Eventually, plaintiff was advised by her physician that her fetus had severe deformities, and he recommended that she terminate her pregnancy. Plaintiff contended that her husband called the company, advised it that she would be terminating her pregnancy and requested a one week vacation for her to have the procedure. Although plaintiff contended her vacation request was approved, she was discharged less than a week after she had the procedure.

In response, plaintiff filed a gender discrimination case under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), alleging that she was discharged because of her abortion, which, she argued, constituted pregnancy discrimination under the PDA.

Continue reading "Employee Fired after Having an Abortion has Claim for Pregnancy Discrimination" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pregnancy Discrimination

Bookmark:

It has been a good Supreme Court term for employees. In a recent post, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, in which the Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) encompasses retaliation claims even though the text of the statute contains no reference to retaliation. In today’s post, we discuss another retaliation decision by the Supreme Court, Gomez-Perez v. Potter, in which the Court held that under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a federal employee who is a victim of retaliation in response to the filing of a complaint of age discrimination may assert a retaliation claim under the federal-sector provision of the ADEA.

In the case, Myrna Gomez-Perez was employed by the United States Postal Service (USPS) and was 45 years old at the time when she requested a job transfer. When her supervisor rejected her request for a transfer she filed an internal age discrimination complaint, alleging that the denial of her transfer request was based on her age and therefore discriminatory. Ms. Gomez-Perez claimed that in response to her complaint, she was retaliated against by the USPS in various ways, including groundless complaints about her work and a significant reduction in her work hours.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Wrap-Up II: Court Finds Implied Claim of Retaliation in Age Discrimination Act" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Retaliation

Bookmark:

The blawgosphere has been buzzing about the supposed death of punitive damages in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, in which the Court held that, as a matter of federal maritime law, the maximum amount of a defendant’s liability for punitive damages is equal to one times the amount of compensatory damages awarded.

The employment discrimination bar has been particularly concerned about Exxon’s impact in employment cases. For example, the Workplace Prof Blog notes that the 1:1 ratio “if applied to employment cases, would have devastating impact.”

We don’t believe that Exxon will have a significant impact on employment discrimination cases. First and perhaps most significant, the case is not controlling precedent in the employment discrimination context, as it was decided under federal maritime law, and the court relied heavily on state statutes in arriving at the 1:1 ratio. As neither of these sources of law has any bearing on employment discrimination law, the direct precedential effect of Exxon should be limited.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages in Employment Discrimination Cases after Exxon: The Death of Punies has been Greatly Exaggerated" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

The United States Supreme Court has recently issued a number of very employee-friendly employment discrimination decisions. In this post and our next few posts, we will discuss these important employment discrimination decisions.

In the first case, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, the Court addressed the issue of whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) permits actions for retaliatory discharge. Section 1981 is a Civil War-era federal civil rights law that gives “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States . . . the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Plaintiffs often choose to file race discrimination claims under Section 1981 in addition to Title VII claims because there is no requirement to first file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, Section 1981’s statue of limitations is much longer than Title VII’s 180-day limitations period, and Section 1981 has no cap on damages. However, unlike Title VII, Section 1981 does not contain language prohibiting retaliation, and many courts have therefore held that retaliation claims are not available under the statute.

In the case, Hedrick Humphries was an African-American manager of a Cracker Barrel restaurant who claimed he was discharged because of his race and because he had complained that another African-American employee had been discriminated against because of his race. Accordingly, he brought suit under both Title VII and Section 1981. The lower court dismissed Humphries’ Title VII claim on procedural grounds and granted Cracker Barrel’s motion for summary judgment on Humphries’ Section 1981 claim, holding that retaliation claims are not available under the statute.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Wrap-Up: Supremes Rule that Section 1981 Encompasses Claims for Retaliation" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Race Discrimination , Retaliation

Bookmark:

We just received a good result from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court for the states of Georgia, Florida and Alabama) in a race discrimination and retaliation case and, at the risk of seeming immodest, we’d like to share it with you. It’s a very employee-friendly decision on the issue of what is an adverse action under the discrimination laws, and the court held that when a company makes a discriminatory decision that it later corrects, the employer’s after-the-fact corrective action does not cure the initially discriminatory act.

In the case, Crawford v. Carroll, our client, Jacquelyn Crawford, is an African American female who was employed at Georgia State University in various capacities in its human resources department. Her dispute with GSU began with a disciplinary action she received for allegedly violating the school’s bereavement leave policy. When she complained about this discipline, she claimed she was subjected to retaliation by her Caucasian supervisor in the form of unreasonable job demands and overly critical scrutiny of her work.

The dispute then escalated when Crawford was denied a promotion to a position that was posted several times during a two-year period even though several managers believed she was the most qualified applicant for the position. During this period, Crawford’s Caucasian supervisors issued her a negative performance review, which made her ineligible for a merit pay increase that she was scheduled to receive in October 2002. In response, Crawford filed an internal complaint contending that the poor performance review and resulting disqualification for the merit pay increase were racially discriminatory and retaliatory.

While her internal complaint was pending, the position that Crawford had been denied was posted for a third time. This time, Crawford was not even selected for an interview, and GSU recommended that a Caucasian male be awarded the position.

Continue reading "Discriminatory Denial of Pay Raise Cannot be Cured by Later Raise" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Race Discrimination , Retaliation

Bookmark:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contains a rarely used provision that protects employees who are not disabled but who are discriminated against because they are associated with an individual, such as a spouse or other family member, who is disabled. A recent case from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, although not controlling in the state of Georgia, has set a very strong employee-friendly precedent that should be favorable to employees throughout the country.

William and Debra Trujillo were long-term employees of PacifiCorp and they participated in the company’s health insurance plan. Their son Charlie was also covered by the plan. Charlie had cancer (which the company was aware of), and in the spring of 2003 he had a relapse, necessitating an aggressive course of medical treatments which, as the company was self-insured, eventually cost the company more than $60,000.

Just 11 days after Charlie’s relapse, the company launched an investigation of the Trujillos on suspicion of time theft. After a brief investigation, in which key witnesses were not interviewed, and suspect evidence was relied on, the Trujillos were discharged.

In response, the Trujillos filed an association discrimination lawsuit under the ADA, contending that they were terminated not because of their alleged time theft but because of the healthcare costs the company incurred as a result of Charlie’s illness. The lower court ruled in favor of the company, concluding that the Trujillos failed to show that the circumstances raised a reasonable inference that Charlie’s disability was a determining factor in the company’s decision to fire them.

Continue reading "Parents Discharged for Son's Medical Costs Have Disability Discrimination Claim" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Disability Discrimination

Bookmark:

As we wrote in a prior post about the case of Reeves v. C.H. Robinson on sexual harassment, an employee complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace must prove that harassment was severe and pervasive, and not merely sporadic or occasional. Unfortunately for the employee in a recent case, Webb-Edwards v. Orange County Sherriff’s Office, even though she experienced considerable harassment from her supervisor, it was not severe and pervasive enough to give rise to a valid claim of sexual harassment.

Elaine Webb-Edwards was a deputy sheriff in the Orange County, Florida Sheriff’s Office. Her supervisor made a number of sexually charged comments that offended her, such as, “you look hot,” and “you’d look better if you’d wear tighter clothes.” On one occasion, when the employee and her supervisor were riding alone in a squad car, and the employee was speaking to her husband on her cell phone about lunch plans, the supervisor grabbed the phone out of the employee’s hands and told her husband, “I don’t know what you’re saying, but I’m eating your wife.”

After the employee complained about these comments, the supervisor stopped making them, but he continued to look at her from time to time in a way that made her feel uncomfortable.

The employee eventually filed a sexual harassment suit in federal court. The County, however, moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, finding that the alleged sexual harassment was not sufficiently severe and pervasive to create an abusive and hostile work environment. On the employee’s appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment. The court held that even though the comments were made on a regular basis, they made the employee feel uncomfortable, and they were “taunting and boorish,” because they were not physically threatening or humiliating, and the supervisor never actually touched Ms. Webb-Edwards, a reasonable person in her shoes would not have found the supervisor’s conduct sufficiently hostile or abusive to support her claim of sexual harassment. The court did take special pains to note that although it was particularly concerned about the “eating your wife” comment, it concluded that this comment was still not sufficiently abusive, even in conjunction with the other offensive conduct, to establish a sexual harassment claim.

To get a good overview of the current state of sexual harassment law as it applies in the State of Georgia, take a look at the Webb-Edwards case as well as the Reeves case.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sexual Harassment

Bookmark: