Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

What some workers may consider “goofing around” or “horse play” can have serious consequences. In a recent case out of Mississippi, a nursing home supervisor pulled down the pants and underwear of a nurse in front of several co-workers.
The nurse later resigned from the job, stating that the offensive conduct made her job intolerable. She then filed a sexual harassment claim, explaining that the conduct “created a hostile work environment” in violation of Title VII.

Sexual harassment is probably the most well known form of employment discrimination. What is not as well known is just what sexual harassment is. In order to prove sexual harassment, you must show that you have been subjected to unwelcome conduct that creates a hostile environment based on your sex that is sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of your employment. Sexual harassment is not easily defined – if you have questions about unwelcome conduct or believe that you have suffered sexual harassment at work, it is a good idea to consult with a dedicated Georgia sexual harassment lawyer at once.

Here, the nurse alleged that the supervisor “engaged in a constellation of offensive behavior that ran the gamut from entering the bathroom while she was using it to bragging about having sex with the company's nursing director, calling sex chat lines, and simulating ejaculation.” He then yanked her pants and underwear down during an incident that occurred in front of several co-workers.

Although this conduct seems to be clearly offensive – the case raised several important points about harassment lawsuits. First, the employer claimed that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the worker did not complain about the incident. Instead, it became aware of the situation when another employee complained. The company also stated that when it gave the work the opportunity to file a formal complaint, she refused to discuss the matter and instead quit her job.

Continue reading "Court Finds That Nurse Who Was “Pantsed” May Have Workplace Harassment Claim" »

A new version of an anti-employment discrimination bill has just been re-introduced seeking to eliminate employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender-identity. The reintroduced Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, fire, or take any other adverse action against a worker based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Similar restrictions also would extend to employment agencies and labor organizations.

As stated by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who introduced the law, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are first-class citizens; they are full and welcome members of our American family; and they deserve the same civil rights protections as all other Americans—to be judged based on their talent, ability, qualifications and what they can contribute, not by their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

While many types of employment discrimination are currently prohibited – such as sex, religion and race – Title VII of the 1964 Civil Right Act – does not specifically address workplace bias concerning sexual orientation. However, if you experience any form of work place discrimination, it’s a good idea to speak to a knowledgeable Atlanta employment discrimination lawyer right away. An experienced Georgia discrimination lawyer can help you determine the best steps to take.

While Title VII does not specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination or gender identity, several states do have laws prohibiting these types of bias. For example 16 states ban discrimination based on gender identity and 21 prohibit gender discrimination.

Continue reading "Gender Identification Bill Reintroduced" »

Employment law news reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has just settled a national origin discrimination lawsuit against a Japanese company. According to allegations, the corporation paid its Hispanic employees less than non-Hispanic employees who were engaged in the same work. The settlement will provide nearly 40 individuals back pay.

National origin discrimination is defined by the EEOC as treating someone less favorably because he or she is from a particular place, because of his or her ethnicity or accent, or because it is believed that he or she has a particular ethnic background. National origin discrimination also means treating someone less favorably at work because of marriage or other association with someone of a particular nationality.

How do you know if you have been a victim of “national origin discrimination”?

Discrimination can show itself in very obvious ways, such as racial slurs or name calling – but it may also take subtle forms such as requiring workers be fluent in English or other English-only rules. Also, like the other anti-discrimination laws, national origin discrimination rules also prohibit retaliation against you for complaining about national origin discrimination or for participating in someone else's national origin discrimination case.

Regardless of your citizenship status, you are protected against national origin discrimination.

If you have questions about or believe that you have been subjected to discrimination of any sort, it is important to get help from a knowledgeable Georgia national origin discrimination attorney right away.

Continue reading "Workers To Receive Back Pay Following National Origin Lawsuit Settlement" »

The popular clothing store Abercrombie & Fitch, often in hot water for its advertising campaigns, now finds itself facing legal troubles. A Muslim teenager was turned away for employment by the retailer after wearing a religious headscarf to a job interview. Now, a federal district court in California has determined that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can proceed with religious discrimination claims against the company.

Title VII prohibits “religious discrimination.” As with other anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII – such as sex discrimination and race discrimination - your employer may not take an adverse action against you based on your religious beliefs. This means a potential employer can’t deny you a job because of your religious beliefs or discipline or fire you because of your faith.

If you have questions about religious discrimination or believe that you may have been discriminated against because of your religion, it’s a good idea to consult with a top Atlanta discrimination lawyer right away.

In the recent religious discrimination case, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Halla Banafa applied for a job at two different Milpitas, California Abercrombie stores, but was denied a position. The people who were hired were non-Muslim and had lower scores on their job applications. Abercrombie claim that it failed to hire Banafa because she had “limited availability.” However Banafa argued that this reason was really “pretext” [an excuse] for not hiring her. She alleged that the real reason she wasn’t hired was religious bias.

The court determined that whether the decision not to hire Ms. Banafa was based on religious bias should be left to a jury to decide. It listed several factors that could support improper bias. For example, the EEOC alleged that Abercrombie did not hire Banafa because it determined that her hijab, or religious headscarf, was inconsistent with the “Abercrombie look.” Under the company's “look policy,” employees are required to wear clothes similar to those sold in Abercrombie stores.

Continue reading "Muslim Teen Allegedly Denied Job Because Of Head Scarf May Have Claim For Religious Discrimination" »

Despite improvements in race relations over the last several decades, many instances of racism still exist in the workplace. Two different federal laws exist that protect against race discrimination in the workplace - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. Title VII prohibits employers from taking race into consideration when making employment decisions. This includes decisions such as whether to hire, fire or promote a worker. Title VII also prohibits harassment and retaliation for complaining about discrimination. Harassment includes acts such as derogatory racial jokes or subtle company policies such as dress codes or English-only rules.

Section 1981 is somewhat broader and protects the rights of all persons to make and enforce contracts regardless of race. Title VII applies to employers, but under 1981 individuals can be found responsible for discrimination and be required to pay damages.

If you have suffered race discrimination at work or have any questions about race discrimination, it’s a good idea to speak to a top Georgia employment attorney right away.

A recent case, Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, looked at whether a black employee could bring a claim for race bias under Section 1981, harassment and retaliation against his employer.

The man, Magloire Ayissi-Etoh, claimed that an executive of the company denied him a raise explaining that the company already was “paying [him] a lot of money” for a “young black man. ” He also alleged that another official at the company called him the “N-word,” and yelled “[g]et out of my office nigger,”

In this instance the court explained that whether discrimination exists under 1981 is analyzed in the same way as claims under Title VII, and that an employee generally will be entitled to a trial if he presents direct evidence of discrimination. The court determined that the comment describing Ayissi-Etoh as a smart “young black man” who already is being paid “a lot of money” constitutes such direct evidence.

The court also determined that a jury could find that Ayissi-Etoh’s work environment was racially hostile. Importantly the court noted that a single use of the N-word could be enough to show racial harassment under Section 1981.

Further, writing in concurrence, Judge Kavanaugh said he wanted to “underscore an important point” that one single, but severe incident of harassment can be sufficient to establish a hostile work environment under federal anti-discrimination laws.
“It may be difficult to fully catalogue the various verbal insults and epithets that by themselves could create a hostile work environment,”

“No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country's long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African Americans,” Kavanaugh said. “Here, as I see it, the alleged statement by the Fannie Mae Vice President to Ayissi-Etoh itself would establish a hostile work environment. With that understanding, I join the Court's opinion.”

Continue reading "A Single Instance Of Harassment Can Be Enough To Constitute A Hostile Work Environment" »

Despite improvements in race relations over the last several decades, many instances of racism still exist in the workplace. Two different federal laws exist that protect against race discrimination in the workplace - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. Title VII prohibits employers from taking race into consideration when making employment decisions. This includes decisions such as whether to hire, fire or promote a worker. Title VII also prohibits harassment and retaliation for complaining about discrimination. Harassment includes acts such as derogatory racial jokes or subtle company policies such as dress codes or English-only rules.

Section 1981 is somewhat broader and protects the rights of all persons to make and enforce contracts regardless of race. Title VII applies to employers, but under 1981 individuals can be found responsible for discrimination and be required to pay damages.

If you have suffered race discrimination at work or have any questions about race discrimination, it’s a good idea to speak to a top Georgia employment attorney right away.

A recent case, Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, looked at whether a black employee could bring a claim for race bias under Section 1981, harassment and retaliation against his employer.

The man, Magloire Ayissi-Etoh, claimed that an executive of the company denied him a raise explaining that the company already was “paying [him] a lot of money” for a “young black man.” He also alleged that another official at the company called him the “N-word,” and yelled “[g]et out of my office nigger.”

In this instance the court explained that whether discrimination exists under 1981 is analyzed in the same way as claims under Title VII, and that an employee generally will be entitled to a trial if he presents direct evidence of discrimination. The court determined that the comment describing Ayissi-Etoh as a smart “young black man” who already is being paid “a lot of money” constitutes such direct evidence.

The court also determined that a jury could find that Ayissi-Etoh’s work environment was racially hostile. Importantly the court noted that a single use of the N-word could be enough to show racial harassment under Section 1981.

Further, writing in concurrence, Judge Kavanaugh said he wanted to “underscore an important point” that one single, but severe incident of harassment can be sufficient to establish a hostile work environment under federal anti-discrimination laws.
“It may be difficult to fully catalog the various verbal insults and epithets that by themselves could create a hostile work environment ... No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country's long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African Americans,” Kavanaugh said. “Here, as I see it, the alleged statement by the Fannie Mae Vice President to Ayissi-Etoh itself would establish a hostile work environment. With that understanding, I join the Court's opinion.”

Continue reading "A Single Instance Of Harassment Can Be Enough To Constitute A Hostile Work Environment" »

The Supreme Court has just heard argument on the Defense of Marriage Act’s exclusion of same sex spouse’s rights to receive many benefits.

As stated by a representative of a woman who was denied a federal marriage exemption on the estate tax for her same sex spouse “DOMA was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people.” Although the case before the Supreme Court, United States v. Windsor deals with federal tax law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsbug pointed out that DOMA affects many federal laws – including federal employment discrimination laws.

For example by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, rights provided under the Family and Medical leave Act (FMLA) are not extended to same sex couples. The FMLA provides some basic rights to care for a family member who is sick, or for a newborn child. Specifically, The FMLA is a federal employment law that allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from their jobs annually in the following circumstances:

• For your own serious health condition;
• To care for your family members who have a serious health condition; and
• For the birth or care of a newborn or adopted child.

However, under DOMA workers may not be able to take leave to care for a same sex spouse.

Some, but not all lower courts around the county have found that the definition of marriage as between a “man and a woman” is unconstitutional. If you believe that you have been denied employment benefits due to your sexual orientation or your marital status, it’s a good idea to consult with an experienced Atlanta employment discrimination law firm right away. Many laws are evolving and changing with the times, and your rights may be affected. Discrimination is never okay – if you feel like you have been treated adversely at work because of your sexual orientation - it’s important to talk to a knowledgeable employee’s rights attorney at once.

Continue reading "Definition Of Marriage Affects Many Federal Laws" »

Recently a female basketball referee from New Jersey brought a lawsuit against the local school district and the state scholastic association alleging that she was being illegally discrimination against because of her sex. According to her sex discrimination lawsuit, she was unlawfully excluded from officiating boys’ high school varsity basketball games.

The lawsuit raised a number of interesting questions such as who was her employer? Was the referee excluded because of her gender or because she lacked sufficient qualifications?

As a general rule, federal employment discrimination law – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - prohibits discrimination "because of" an employee's sex. This means that your employer may not take an adverse action against you because of your sex. In other words, your sex cannot play a role in any aspect of your employment, including hiring, transfers, promotions, pay, disciplinary action, suspensions, and discharges. Title VII applies to all private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor organizations and the federal government if they employ at least 15 employees. If you have questions about gender discrimination or gender bias in your workplace, it’s a good idea to consult with an experienced Atlanta gender discrimination attorney right away.

Here one of the main questions in the gender discrimination case was who should the referee sue, i.e. who is the referee’s employer? This is not always an easy question to answer. The referee had to identify who her employer was and who was covered by Title VII. The Court of Appeals determined that three potential parties could be considered her “employer” for the purpose of a gender discrimination lawsuit: Hamilton Township School District, New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA) and the local decision of the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials.

Continue reading "Female Basketball Referee Brings Case For Bias " »

In many situations, workers may sustain certain types of injuries or have a legally defined disability, but still be able to perform many of the functions of their job with some slight adjustments. The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and the American with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (the “ADAAA”) are designed to protect these workers and help them keep their jobs.

Specifically, the ADA and the ADAAA make discrimination against “qualified individuals with a disability” in the terms and conditions of employment illegal. This generally means that 1) if you are a “qualified individual” and 2) you have a disability, that your employer can’t fire you or take other negative action against you and that where reasonable, your employer must try to take actions to accommodate your needs.

If you have questions about the ADA/ADAAA or believe that you may have been discriminated against, it is important to consult with a skilled Georgia disability discrimination attorney right away.

A recent case – McMillan v. N.Y.C.- looked at just what accommodations an employer must make when an employee has a disability. In this instance, a schizophrenic employee was chronically late, but the employer failed to adjust the work hours to “accommodate” the employee.

Whenever the ADA/ADAAA is involved, the first question to address is does the worker have a disability? A disability is defined as any medical, physiological, or psychiatric condition that substantially limits a major life activity. Temporary conditions or conditions that, although serious, don’t substantially limit any of your major life activities are not covered. Remember, the definition of a disability under the ADA is a legal one, not a medical one.

Here, the worker in question suffered from schizophrenia, a psychiatric condition that substantially limits day-to-day functions and is covered by the ADA. Despite the psychiatric condition, the employee was able to control his condition as long as he took medication. However, the medication made him groggy in the mornings and as a result, he was often late. Although he requested a later start time, his employer denied the request.

Continue reading "Getting To Work On Time Isn't Always An Essential Job Function Under The ADA" »

In a recent Georgia pay discrimination case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that a male was entitled to proceed with his claim. The Fulton County, Georgia community development specialist alleged that he was paid less than a female manager who had the same job responsibilities.

The Equal Pay Act provides that women and men at the same workplace must be given equal pay for equal work. The jobs do not need to be exactly the same, but “substantially equal.” What you do in your job, rather than your job title, determines whether the jobs are “substantially equal.”

Your right to be free from pay discrimination is protected by many federal laws – so if you have a claim under the Equal Pay Act you may also have a claim under Title VII. If you think you’re not getting paid the same amount as someone doing the same job as you – and you believe that it’s because of your gender – it’s a good idea to talk to an experienced Georgia Equal Pay attorney. A skilled Atlanta employment discrimination attorney can evaluate your particular situation and determine the next steps to take.

In the recent Georgia case, the court looked at the responsibilities of both a male and female holding similar jobs. The facts showed that from 1999 to 2007 the male worker – Ronald Edwards - began taking on job responsibilities beyond his pay grade. Although he complained and requested a pay raise from his employer (Fulton county), they didn’t do anything.

Continue reading "Male Worker Successfully Alleges Claim Under Equal Pay Act" »

When you think about sexual harassment, the first thing that comes to mind for many people is a male boss making inappropriate comments, gestures and other sexual overtures toward a female employee. However, sexual harassment can exist in many different situations. In legal terms, sexual harassment is defined as “unwelcome conduct that creates a hostile environment based on your sex that is sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of your employment.” It may exist as the result of male conduct toward a female employee, female conduct toward a male employee, or same sex harassment.

Rather than having one specific definition, whether a claim for sexual harassment exists depends on the particular set of circumstances in each case. The bottom line, though, is that, whether you're a man or a woman, if you are subjected to a steady stream of unwelcome and offensive conduct that is based on your sex, and you complain about the harassment to your employer, but your employer does nothing about it, you probably have a strong claim of sexual harassment.

If you have questions about sexual harassment or believe that you may have been subjected to sexual harassment at work, its important to contact a top Atlanta sex discrimination lawyer right away. A knowledgeable Georgia employment discrimination attorney can help answer your questions and determine your next steps.

A recent case looked specifically at same-sex harassment and under what circumstances such a claim is allowed. In Barrows v. Seneca Foods Corp., male food industry worker claimed that his supervisor requested a “blowjob” from him and touched his genitals.

The worker also presented evidence that female employees were not subject to the same treatment. Because the comments and actions were male-specific, the court determined that they could be considered “gender-based” and as a result, a jury could find sexual harassment existed.

Continue reading "Is It Sexual Harassment? The Answer Often Depends On The Particular Facts Of Each Situation " »

The NFL has announced that it plans to investigate a report that at least one of the League’s teams has asked a scouting prospect about his sexual orientation. According to recent claims by Colorado tight end Nick Kasa, he was asked several questions related to his sexual orientation. Following his assertion, other players such as Michigan quarterback/receiver Denard Robinson, have made similar claims.

While the federal government prohibits employers from making hiring decisions on the basis of sex, disability, race, ethnicity, religion, veteran status, age, and genetic information, as a today’s date, no federal law prohibits questions about someone’s sexual preference. However, that doesn’t mean it’s okay. Many workplaces – including the federal government and the NFL have policies prohibiting such questions.

Questions about sexual orientation may be a violation of your rights in these circumstances and be considered “sexual orientation discrimination.”

If you have questions about sexual orientation discrimination or believe that you may have been discriminated against because you are gay (or straight) it’s a good idea to speak to an experienced Atlanta sexual orientation attorney right away.

In a radio interview, Kasa stated:

"[Teams] ask you like, 'Do you have a girlfriend?' 'Are you married?' 'Do you like girls? …Those kinds of things, and you know it was just kind of weird. But they would ask you with a straight face, and it's a pretty weird experience altogether."

In response to the recent claims, the NFL said, "teams are expected to follow applicable federal, state and local employment laws."

"It is league policy to neither consider nor inquire about sexual orientation in the hiring process. In addition, there are specific protections in our collective bargaining agreement with the players that prohibit discrimination against any player, including on the basis of sexual orientation…We will look into the report on the questioning of Nick Kasa at the scouting combine. Any team or employee that inquires about impermissible subjects or makes an employment decision based on such factors is subject to league discipline."

Continue reading "NFL Begins Investigation Into Sexual Orientation Questions" »