Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

In a recent case interpreting just what constitutes actionable retaliation as set forth in Thompson v. North am. Stainless LP, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that threats made by a Muslim firefighter’s supervisors could also be intended as a serious threat to the firefighter’s co-worker/close friend and as a result, constitute a viable claim for retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Title VII and other employment discrimination laws prohibit retaliation in the workplace. If you experience retaliation in the workplace, you may be entitled to the same remedies as you have in any other discrimination case. Retaliation doesn’t only mean that you have been discharged for making a complaint. The Supreme Court has defined retaliation broadly including any actions or conduct by an employer that would deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights. This has been extended to include actions by your employer not only against you but also a family or close friend.

In Ali v. District of Columbia, Ali and a fellow firefighter, Craig, were late in appearing for a drill. Ali explained that they were late because they were praying. The two men were then ordered to prepare special reports explaining their slow response time. Craig was told he had to make a choice between “his job and his religion.” Ali subsequently complained, calling the statement “out of line.” Ali was also told that if he pursued his complaint, members of the fire company, including Craig, would be disciplined. Ali then agreed to withdraw his religious discrimination complaint in order to avoid Craig facing termination or discipline.

A few months later, the department’s diversity/EEO program manager concluded the supervisor required corrective action, noting that while unrealized threats may not constitute an adverse action in Title VII discrimination, they can be materially adverse for Title VII retaliation purposes. Here, the fact that Ali withdrew his report because he had no desire to have Craig disciplined, was sufficient to state a claim for retaliation. The court noted that although differences existed between this case and Thompson, the connection between the threat and the protected activity was obvious. As a result, Ali could maintain a claim for retaliation.

Continue reading " Threats To Close Friend May Constitute Retaliation in Ali v. District of Columbia " »

A recent case out of the Fifth Circuit, Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., examined whether a man who endured persistent abusive remarks about his age and his religious beliefs may bring a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that based on the facts of the case, the 65-year-old man was entitled to maintain his age and religious discrimination action.

Although you would think employers are happy to have older, more experienced workers on the payroll, this is often not the case. Age discrimination is one of the fastest growing types of employment discrimination. Sadly many times older workers are subjected to teasing and harassment, and may be overlooked for hiring and promotion or subjected to other adverse employment actions. Fortunately, Congress enacted the ADEA to prohibit discrimination against individuals over the age of 40.

Here, Milan Dediol, a born again Christian worked at a car dealership in the New Orleans area. His supervisor constantly harassed him about his age, calling him “old man,” “pops,” and “old mother ******.” The supervisor also allegedly steered customers away from him and to other workers. Additionally, when Dediol left to attend a church event, his supervisor threatened to beat him up, then fired him for job abandonment.

Title VII prohibits religious discrimination. This means that your employer may not discriminate against you, or subject you to harassment or retaliation, because of your religious beliefs.

The 5th Circuit evaluated the facts, including allegations that the supervisor used age based epithets up to six times a day, and determined that this amount of name calling was sufficient to raise a claim of age-based harassment that was likely to interfere with Dediol’s work performance. Additionally, although no “smoking gun” of religious discrimination existed, all of the epithets taken together amounted to a pattern of acrimony based on Dediol’s religion. As a result, the Court of Appeals determined that Dediol could maintain both a claim for age discrimination and religious discrimination.

Continue reading " Worker Called “Pops” And “Old Man” Entitled To Bring An Age Discrimination Case In Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc. " »

Nearly 50 years ago Congress passed federal law prohibiting employment discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees, former employees and applicants for employment based on their sex, race, color, religion and national origin. Additional federal laws have been passed to prohibit disability discrimination and age discrimination. A seemingly simple question is raised by many workers in determining whether these discrimination laws apply to them and provides them protection – i.e. who is an employee?

A recent case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated what factors are involved in determining a person’s status as an employee under Title VII, allowing an individual protection from discrimination. In Bryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t Inc., an administrative aide to a volunteer fire department alleged that she had been sexually harassed by the Fire Chief. She further asserted that after complaining of the harassment she was retaliated against, leading to her constructive discharge.

The lower court dismissed the claim reasoning that even though the administrative assistant was an employee, the members of the volunteer fire department did not receive pay and as a result were not employees. Because Title VII only applies to employers who employ at least 15 employees, the court determined federal sexual discrimination law was not applicable.

Continue reading " 6th Circuit Determines Volunteers May Be Considered Employees In Bryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t Inc. " »

Many times work place biases influence how we are treated at work. Fortunately, congress has enacted laws to protect us from many forms of employment discrimination. One of these laws is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination against qualified individuals. The ADA prohibits your employer from taking adverse action against you because of your disability and also protects you from harassment and retaliation for complaining about disability discrimination or being involved in another employee’s disability discrimination case.

Who does the ADA protect? The ADA protects qualified individuals with a disability. This is typically defined as a worker with any medical, psychiatric or physiological condition that substantially limits a major life activity. This definition has also been extended to included discrimination based on stereotypes – sometimes called “regarded as.” For example, an employee may have a condition that doesn’t affect him or her in any way, but due to unfounded fears the employer believes employee is disable and takes negative action. In a recent disability discrimination case out of the First Circuit, the court determined that a schizophrenic worker sufficiently pleaded that his employer forced him to stop working because it regarded him as disabled. His complaint allege that he had been removed from his job even though he had favorable medical reports and that his employer mistakenly believed his psychiatric condition limited his ability to do his job. The court also determined that the employee’s schizophrenia had not had a substantial impact on his work.

Continue reading " Man With Schizophrenia Can Bring "Regarded As" Claim " »