Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

A recent case determined that a man who was fired following surgery could bring a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The FMLA is a federal employment law that provides protection for eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from their jobs annually under certain circumstances. These include, but are not limited to:

• When you have a serious health condition
• To care for a family member who has a serious health condition, and
• For the birth of or care of a newborn or adopted child.

If you are eligible for leave and follow all notice requirements, the FMLA protects you from adverse employment actions. This means that your employer cannot interfere with your rights to take FMLA leave by denying your request or requiring notice or disclosures beyond those required by the act. It also means that your employer must restore you to your job after your FMLA leave has ended. Additionally, the FMLA protects employees from retaliation. This means that if your employer takes negative actions against you after asking for leave, you may have a claim for FMLA retaliation.

If you believe your employer has interfered with your FMLA rights or has retaliated against you for requesting leave, you may be able to file an FMLA lawsuit. An experienced Atlanta Family and Medical Leave attorney can provide crucial advice regarding your rights.

Continue reading " Family And Medical Leave Act Claim Revived After Worker Fired For Taking Leave After Surgery In Shaffer v. American Med. Ass’n " »

In late September, a federal court determined that a religious discrimination case filed on behalf of Muslim and Sikh bus drivers, train operators and subway station agents should proceed. The federal ruling came a year after a district court judge determined that the case should proceed because the New York Transit Authority had failed to show any undue hardship in allowing the workers to wear their chosen headwear.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law preventing employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion. Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination means that an employer cannot discriminate against you because of your religious beliefs. Federal law also prohibits harassment based on your religion and retaliation for complaining about or participating in someone else’s harassment case.

One of the protections provided by Title VII is that an employer must make a reasonable effort to accommodate your religious beliefs.

In United States v. New York City Transit Authority, transit workers alleged that the NYCTA failed to accommodate Muslim and Sikh employees’ religious practices and beliefs by refusing to permit Muslim women to wear headscarves and Sikh men t wear turbans unless they were covered with Transit Authority caps or attached Transit Authority logos to them. They also alleged that the NYCTA selectively enforced its policies against Muslim and Sikh transit workers.

The district court determined that accommodating the Muslim and Sikh workers by exempting them from the cap and logo requirements would not adversely affect the NYCTA’s public image or detract from the perceived professionalism of its work force.

Continue reading " Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Based On Headwear Policies Continues in United States v. New York City Transit Authority " »

Many times retaliation claims may be brought and won even where it may not be possible to maintain the underlying case for harassment or employment discrimination. If you have been fired or subjected to an “adverse employment action” after complaining about behavior you believe is in violation of discrimination laws, you may have a claim for retaliation. Consulting with an experienced employment discrimination lawyer is important to determine your next steps.

In a recent Seventh Circuit case - Egan v. Freedom Bank - the court determined that a woman who complained about a male board member revealing his sexual fantasies about her could bring a claim for retaliation when she was later fired. Here Egan was the vice president of Freedom Bank and interacted with a member of the board of directors for business purposes. The board member told her that he “fantasized about making love to her on a dance floor and wanted to take her to Las Vegas and other places around the world.” Egan declined his advances and subsequently filed a claim for sexual harassment.

A few months later, Egan learned her position had been eliminated “based on financial and organizational efficiency.” Another employee reported that he overheard a conversation where the future bank president said he had heard Egan had been doing “something she should have been fired for.” He assumed the president was referring to filing the claim.

After her termination, Egan filed a lawsuit for sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Continue reading " Retaliation Claim Allowed In Egan v. Freedom Bank Where Vice President Is Fired After Complaining About Sexual Harassment " »

Many people think that employers would welcome older workers on the payroll and value the experience they bring to the job. Unfortunately this is not always the case. As the American workforce ages, so has discrimination against older workers. In fact, age discrimination is one of the fastest growing types of employment discrimination.

In a recent case evaluating the discrimination claims of a 59-year-old California woman, Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., the Ninth Circuit determined that the older worker, Charlene Earl, could bring a claim for age discrimination where she was able to show specific and substantial evidence that significantly younger workers received more lenient treatment from the company for violations of the same company policies.

Age discrimination laws such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) make age discrimination illegal and prohibit discrimination against anyone of the age of 40. This includes taking adverse employment actions or subjecting you to harassment because of your age.

Here, Earl was fired after working 12 years with minimal discipline. Nielsen claimed that it fired her for legitimate reasons after determining she had committed several policy violations. However, Earl countered that this was “pretext” and that the real reason she was fired was her age. As evidence she showed examples that Nielsen had treated younger, similarly situated employees better and that she was fired without first providing her a “performance improvement plan (PIP)” which was standard procedure.

An important consideration in the case was whether the employees shown were proper “comparators” with Earl. The court determined that in age discrimination cases, older employees may use evidence of better treatment of younger employees –even if they are over 40. As stated in the opinion, “although sex (discrimination) and race discrimination rely on membership in a particular class, “age discrimination is relative, the proper inquiry is not whether the other recruiter are outside the protected class, but whether they are substantially younger than Earl.” “[T]he fact that a replacement is substantially younger than the plaintiff is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination than is the fact that the plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class.”

Continue reading " Older Employee May Bring Claim For Age Discrimination Claim Where Evidence Exists That Younger Workers Were Treated Better in Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc . " »