Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

Older workers offer significant experience and maturity to the work force, but unfortunately age discrimination continues to be one of the fastest growing types of employment discrimination claims. In an effort to combat this growing problem, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA makes age discrimination illegal and provides legal protection for those fired – or experiencing any type of adverse employment action – because of their age. The ADEA also protects those people who complain about age discrimination or participate in another’s age discrimination claim from retaliation. The ADEA applies to people 40 years or older.

If you believe you have been treated unfairly at work as the result of your age, speaking to a knowledgeable Georgia age discrimination lawyer is an important step to determine your rights and evaluate your next steps.

In an effort to reflect recent Supreme Court rulings concerning the ADEA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has just approved a draft ADEA final rule amending the current (ADEA). The Supreme Court decisions concern the “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) defense that provides that employers may have a defense to ADEA violations if they can show that an employment decision is based on “reasonable factors other than age.” The rulings, Smith v. City of Jackson and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories determined that the RFOA defense should be based on the “facts and circumstances” of each case and whether an employer made the best decisions in light of those facts. The amendments seek to adopt a “balancing approach” to protect workers from discrimination and protect older workers from facially neutral employment practices that disparately impact employment.

Continue reading " Draft Final Rule On ADEA Regulations Approved " »

Sometimes evidence that you have been discriminated against may be clear and direct. Other times evidence of discrimination may be indirect and is based on inference or presumption. In a recent case, Makowski v. SmithAmundsen, the 7th Circuit determined that a statement that reveals bias may be used as direct proof of job discrimination, and that these statements may be deemed “admissions” and not hearsay.

If you have questions concerning employment discrimination or believe that you have been suffered job discrimination, it is important to speak to a knowledgeable Georgia discrimination lawyer to determine your next steps.

In Makowski, a marketing director of a Chicago Law Firm sued for pregnancy bias and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act after she was terminated following a pregnancy leave of absence.

In addition to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination “because of” your gender, Congress has passed some additional anti-discrimination laws that protect women in the workplace. One of these protections is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act that prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. Rather than giving pregnant women special treatment, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act simply provides that pregnant women must be treated the same as non-pregnant individuals.

Continue reading " 7th Circuit Determines Statements May Be Direct Proof Of Bias In Makowski v. SmithAmundsen " »

A recent case determined that a fired federal employee could bring a claim of retaliation against a federal employer. The decision was the result of the court’s review of Diggs v. HUD, a “mixed case” based on both retaliation and employment discrimination. Although the court determined it lacked proper jurisdiction to decide this case, it was significant in determining that Title VII prohibits retaliation in federal employment.

A mixed case is one that includes both a claim of some form of employment discrimination – here sex discrimination – and an adverse action. In the present case, the adverse action was Diggs’ termination. If you believe you have been subject to any form of discrimination or have been retaliated against after complaining of discrimination, it is important to speak to a knowledgeable Atlanta employment discrimination lawyer to evaluate your claim and determine your next steps.

Here, an employee of HUD, Diggs, was terminated based on misconduct charges including the following: 1) Rude, disruptive, aggressive or intimidating behavior; and 2) Misrepresentation. As a defense to the misconduct charges filed against Diggs, Diggs claimed that she was actually fired because she had previously filed a sex bias claim. A sex bias claim is based on the assertion that an employer has discriminated against you “because of” your sex. Title VII prohibits taking adverse actions such as termination, failure to promote and suspensions because of your gender. Additionally Title VII prohibits retaliation if you complain about discrimination. This is intended to protect employees so that they are not afraid of complaining about work place discrimination, or helping others who file complaints. Prohibited retaliation includes actions such as being demoted, terminated, moved to a worse location or given worse hours. However, the Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on whether the ban on retaliation applies to public-sector employers.

In evaluating whether Title VII bans retaliation in federal employment as in private employment, the Federal Circuit determined that when Congress broadly drafted provisions preventing ‘any discrimination’ it intended to bar the government from “engaging in, among other practices applicable to employers, retaliation against an employee who complains of illegal discrimination.”

Continue reading " Federal Court Determines Anti-Retaliations Laws Protect Federal Employees In Diggs v. HUD " »

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects qualified individuals against several different types of discrimination based on a “disability.” A qualified individual with a disability includes those individuals with any medical, physiological, or psychiatric condition that substantially limits a major life activity. Further, the ADA protects against perceived disabilities. This includes disability discrimination based on stereotypes and baseless concerns about an individual’s condition or medical history. Under these circumstances, it is a violation of federal discrimination laws to take adverse employment actions or retaliate against you for complaining about disability discrimination. It also requires your employer take reasonable steps to accommodate your disability.

In a recent case, Blackburn v. Trustees of Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll., a North Carolina Court reviewed whether a Community College violated the ADA when it refused to allow a house keeper – Gail Blackburn - to return to work. Blackburn had sustained workplace injuries and was placed on work place restrictions prohibiting her from lifting more than 20 pounds, sitting of standing for a prolonged period of time and repetitively bending, stooping or squatting. When she received a physician’s release two months later, the Community College failed to give her her job back, based on their perception that she was disabled and could not perform her job.

Blackburn sued the Community College, and the College tried to defend itself by claiming it was immune from liability as an “arm of the state,” and the Constitution generally prohibits lawsuits against states. However, North Carolina specifically waived sovereign immunity for lawsuits filed by “state employees” and as a result, Blackburn was allowed to proceed with her job discrimination claim.

Continue reading " Community College Employee Allowed To Proceed With Wrongful Termination Claim Under The ADA In Blackburn v. Trustees " »