Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

Employment discrimination laws require you to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with investigating all claims of employment discrimination. As part of that process, the EEOC will begin an investigation into claim. Many people worry about taking the first step in filing a lawsuit and being unsure the extent of the discrimination. A recent lawsuit determined that even if an individual files a lawsuit, it may be possible to search company wide for evidence that a the business engages in system-wide discrimination, making it possible to bring a class action lawsuit.

In EEOC v. Schwan’s Home Service, a former female Schwan’s management trainee filed a sex discrimination case in 2007. She later amended her claim in 2009 to add classwide claims and sought to obtain information by subpoena about just how many women were local managers and how the company prepares and selects employees for these jobs.

Schwan's objected, claiming that the charges fell outside Title VII’s 300-day statute of limitations period. The Eighth Circuit court disagreed, noting that during the subpoena information gathering process questions of timeliness are immature. Further, charges of individualized discrimination “need not be compartmentalized” from charges of systemic gender discrimination in determining the validity of claims. In fact during the subpoena process if a valid charge exists, requests for information “related to” unlawful practices covered by Title VII are valid, and may include any evidence that “might case light on the allegations.” Here, because the investigation into a charge of individual gender discrimination revealed potential systemic gender discrimination, authority existed to subpoena evidence further exploring potentially relevant systemic gender discrimination.

Continue reading " EEOC Can Investigate Widespread Discrimination Even If Only One Employee Complains " »

In a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Mitten v. Lockheed – Martin Aeronautics, the Appellate Court determined that an employee may bring a claim for relief where sufficient circumstantial evidence exists of racial discrimination. It is not necessary to show that another person in the same job position was treated more favorably in order to have a triable claim.

Here, a white male – Anthony Mitten, a supervisor at Lockheed-Martin Aeronautics -claimed that his employer discriminated against him on account of his race by firing him after receiving and then forwarding a racially insensitive joke email. Under a “zero-tolerance” policy in place at Lockheed-Martin, supervisors were required to report acts of harassment, which then would be subject to a Human Resource’s investigation. The HR department would determine the appropriate discipline, up to and including termination. After learning about Mitten’s action in forwarding the email rather than immediately reporting it, the HR department started an investigation into Mitten’s conduct and subsequently fired him. Mitten later learned that two black employees had recently transmitted racist emails targeting whites and received more lenient treatment under the same zero tolerance policy. Mitten then sued claiming reverse race discrimination.

Unfortunately, racism still exists in the workplace. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees “because of” their race or color. The law not only applies to blacks and other racial minorities, but individuals of all races and colors. When a non-minority employee brings a claim, it is known as “reverse discrimination.”

The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia rejected Mitten’s claim of discrimination reasoning that because Mitten did not point out preferentially treated blacks in the same job position as him – a supervisory role – he lacked sufficient evidence of discrimination to continue his case.

The 11 Circuit Appellate Court disagreed, stating “[D]ifferences in job ranks…are not, in and of themselves dispositive as to whether the two individuals may be compare for the purposes of evaluating a discrimination claim.” Significantly, the Appellate Court also noted “the plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if he presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent [emphasis added].” If a jury could infer intentional intent based on the circumstantial evidence, then the case may continue.

Continue reading " Buckley & Klein Victorious In Reverse Race Discrimination Case. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Determines Employees May Always Bring A Claim for Discrimination Where Circumstantial Evidence Of Discriminatory Intent Exists " »

In the largest settlement in the history of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), Verizon Communications has agreed to settle a class action disability discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit, EEOC v. Verizon Del. LLC, challenges the company’s attendance policies, asserting that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by maintaining attendance policies that did not adequately accommodate disabled employees.

Under the ADA, employers are required to take reasonable actions to accommodate qualified individuals with disabilities. This can be a simple step such as changing your start time or changing your workspace. If the employer fails to take such action, you may have a claim for disability discrimination. Speaking directly to an experienced Georgia employees' rights attorney can provide you counsel on the best solution to your problem.

Here, Verizon maintained a disciplinary policy that included progressively serious consequences for absences – including absences due to an employee’ disability. By settling the lawsuit, Verizon does not admit liability or the validity of the allegations. However, Verizon acknowledges the importance of working together with employees to determine the nature of their disabilities and whether accommodations should be made. In a statement, Verizon noted, “Hopefully this nationwide decree will further public awareness of the importance of engaging in an interactive process to determine whether a disabled employee must be accommodated under the ADA.”

Continue reading " $20 Million Settlement In Verizon Disability Discrimination Case " »