Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

A final rule published in the December 8 Federal Register provides that the Department of Defense (DOD) is now barring certain defense contractors and subcontractors from requiring employees or independent contractors arbitrate sexual assault or Title VII sexual harassment claims.

Specifically, the rule implements a provision of the 2010 defense appropriations act that bars defense contractors from using the appropriations act funds in excess of $1 million unless the contractors agrees not to require arbitration of the legal claim as a condition of employment.

In some cases arbitration is a positive alternative to litigation. It is similar to a private trial without a jury in which you and your employer select the judge. Rather than going to court, the parties select a neutral decision-maker and work together to establish procedural rules. Arbitration may be a quicker and less expensive than traditional litigation.

In other cases, however, arbitration is not the best solution. An arbitrator may have a very different outlook on a case than a jury. The arbitrator may not allow the employee sufficient access to documents or witnesses under the employer’s control. Since the arbitrator is typically paid by employer, there can be questions about the arbitrator’s neutrality. And the arbitration hearing, unlike a case in court, is usually held in private and not subject to public scrutiny. Buckley & Klein believes that arbitration should be reserved for cases in which both sides want their case decided by an arbitrator.

Continue reading " Department Of Defense Final Rule Bars Mandatory Arbitration " »

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that a part-time bank teller raised triable issues of disparate treatment and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA prohibits discrimination against “qualified individuals with a disability” in the terms and conditions of employment. A qualified disability is any medical, physiological, or psychiatric condition that substantially limits a major life activity. The ADA provides that where a person is a "qualified individual with a disability," his or her employer must make an effort to reasonably accommodate the disability.

Here, the court determined that the woman’s epilepsy constituted a disability covered by the ADA. Although her medication controlled the amount of seizures she had, they were not eliminated. However, despite her requests for a later start time to allow for more sleep and reduce the frequency of her seizures, the bank refused to allow these changes.

As a result, the court determined that a her claims under the ADA were sufficient to withstand summary judgment, reasoning that a reasonable jury could find that the woman was disabled and that the bank failed to provide the reasonable accommodations.

Continue reading " Disability Discrimination Case Asserted By Bank Teller With Epilepsy " »

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has recently revived a man’s claim of age discrimination against the Department of Defense. In Bartlett v. Gates, a 58-year-old man – Barry Bartlett - was denied promotion to a higher level within the Defense Contracts Management Agency (DCMA) despite his 34 years of experience.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against individuals over the age of 40. If you are older than 40, your employer may not make adverse employment decisions against you on the basis of your age and may not harass you because of your age.

Here, the official in charge of promotions selected a 39-year-old woman. While Mr. Bartlett had completed graduate work in business administration, accounting, and law, the woman had no college degree. Bartlett had also worked at the current branch for 24 years, whereas the woman had only worked 8 years at a different location.

Additionally, the supervisor had made comments suggesting Bartlett retire, and said she “was wondering if you were going antiquing or traveling or something like that because that’s what you supposedly do.”

The 6th Circuit determined that summary judgment against Bartlett was improper because he was able to show direct evidence of discrimination in the form of ageist remarks. The court noted that, “discriminatory remarks by decision-maker and other persons exerting a meaningful role in the decision-making process constitute direct evidence of discrimination.”

Continue reading " Age Discrimination Case Revived " »

A janitorial company that provides services to O’hare International Airport has agreed to pay $3 million to rejected black applicants. At issue – a June 2009 lawsuit asserting race discrimination as a result of the company’s failure to hire or recruit black applicants for janitorial jobs.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability or age. This means that an employer cannot take any form of adverse or negative action against you if you belong to one of these protected categories. Adverse actions include not only termination, but any actions that negatively impact an employee or potential employee such as refusals to hire, negative references, and placement in undesirable shifts or job locations.

Here, an African-American job applicant was denied even the opportunity to interview for a position as a janitor. At least 550 other African-Americans joined the lawsuit, with far greater numbers having been denied the opportunity to interview. Based on racially discriminatory policies at Scrub, Inc., the EEOC sought injunctive relief against the janitorial company in order to “stamp out discrimination.”

As a result of the action, the company will be required to consider claimants for entry level jobs and actively recruit African American job applicants through print, radio spots, and job fares.

Continue reading " Contractor Agrees To Pay $3 Million in EEOC Race Bias Decree " »