Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

Unfortunately, we’re seeing a lot of discrimination cases involving armed forces personnel these days. Under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), employers may not discriminate against active armed services personnel and veterans in employment, but unfortunately a lot of employers are ignoring the law. A recent case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, although not from a Georgia court, is a good reminder of the rights of armed services personnel and veterans to be free from employment discrimination.

In Davis v. Advocate Health Center Patient Care Express, Advocate briefly employed Robert Davis, a Vietnam veteran, as an answering service agent in the spring of 2007. During his probationary period, Advocate fired Davis, and Davis in turn filed a federal discrimination case against Advocate under the USERRA, claiming that it fired him because of his prior military service. Davis also asked the court to waive the filing fee for his case, claiming that the USERRA excused him from having to pay such fees. The lower court disagreed with Davis, concluding that the statute did not waive fees because such an interpretation would encourage frivolous lawsuits.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with Davis and reversed the lower court, holding that Congress’s intent in enacting the statute was to waive the filing fee for covered service personnel. The court noted that his rule applies whether or not the individual can actually afford to pay the fee.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

“Despite considerable racial progress, racism persists as an evil to be remedied in our Nation.” These words, penned by Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William H. Pryor, are from an important race discrimination case recently decided by the federal appeals court for Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, in which the court affirmed a verdict of more than half a million dollars to an African-American employee who was fired after he refused to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement. Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co.

Greg Goldsmith was exposed to a stream of severe racist comments and conduct during his employment, and, although he complained about it repeatedly, his employer failed to correct the problem. He filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC. While his charge was pending, the company adopted a mandatory arbitration policy that required all employees to arbitrate all discrimination claims, and it presented the policy to all of its employees to sign. Mr. Goldsmith, however, was the only employee who had a pending discrimination charge against the company. When Mr. Goldsmith refused to sign the arbitration agreement, he was immediately discharged, but other employees who had initially refused to sign the agreement were not discharged.

In Mr. Goldsmith’s subsequent race discrimination case, he argued that his discharge was in retaliation for his refusal to sign the arbitration policy. The jury agreed, awarding him $50,000 in back pay and emotional distress damages and $500,000 in punitive damages.

On the employer’s appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict, holding that because Goldsmith had agreed to sign the arbitration policy had the company agreed to exclude his pending charge from the policy, and because the company had tried to convince white employees who initially refused to sign the agreement to change their mind, but it simply discharged Goldsmith, there was sufficient evidence of retaliatory animus by the employer to support the verdict.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Race Discrimination

Bookmark:

You may recall that in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., in which it held that victims of pay discrimination have only 180 days from the date of an initial discriminatory pay practice to file a claim of discrimination, even if such a practice continues well after the initial act of discrimination. In Ms. Ledbetter’s case, although she was paid at a lower rate than her male employees for 20 years, she did not learn about the pay discrimination until long after it first occurred. Since her discovery of the pay disparity came about more than 180 days after the initial discriminatory pay decision, the Court held that her claims were barred by the 180-day statute of limitations contained in Title VII. The Court was silent on the Equal Pay Act, which provides women a separate avenue for claims of disparate pay going back as far as three years prior to the filing of suit.

Continue reading " Pay Discrimination Bill Fails in Congress " »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Equal Pay

Bookmark:

In a unanimous 95-0 vote, the U.S. Senate passed an anti-discrimination bill on April 24th that would prohibit employers from using genetic information in making employment-related decisions. The proposed law, known as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, bars employers from using the results of an employee’s genetic test in hiring, firing, or promotion decisions and also prohibits health insurance companies from using genetic information in making enrollment or eligibility decisions or in setting premiums.

With the recent dramatic advances in genetic science, there are now more than 1,000 genetic tests available, but most employees do not take advantage of such tests for fear their employers will discriminate against them based on their test results. This fear could prevent millions of employees from taking genetic tests—tests that could help employees identify serious health conditions and allow them to seek out early intervention and treatment. If the law passes, employees will no longer need to fear retaliation from their employers, and they can get the testing and treatment they need.

The House is expected to pass the bill in the near future, and President Bush has already expressed his support for it. We’ll keep you posted.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

Hi friends. We finally did it. Buckley & Klein, LLP has entered the 21st Century with its launch of the Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog—a blog devoted to tracking developments in the world of labor and employment law. We’ll do our best to keep you up to date on the latest trends in discrimination, harassment and wage and hour law, new employment cases and legislation, and other hot employment topics that we hope will be of interest to employees in Atlanta and throughout the state of Georgia.

Although our practice is focused on representing employees in employment discrimination, harassment, contract, tort, and overtime cases, we hope that all you employers out there will check out our blog from time to time. Yes, we’re tough employment attorneys, and we don’t hesitate to take our clients’ cases to court. But we’re also delighted when enlightened employers make the right choice and follow the law. So, if we can help educate employers to prevent employment problems from occurring, all the better.

Continue reading " Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog is Live " »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: General

Bookmark: