Company Ordered To Pay Double Damages For Interfering With Worker's Right To Take Leave

January 26, 2012

Under several circumstances federal law requires that your employer allow you to take approved leave. These include taking leave to care for a new baby or a family member with a serious health condition. Additionally, if you have a serious health condition the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides that employers must allow eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave.

Although some limitations exist before you may be eligible, once you meet the requirements for leave the FMLA protects you in certain ways, such as requiring an employer to restore you to your job at the same rate of pay and same benefits as before the leave.

In a recent case out of Ohio, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that an employer had interfered with a worker’s leave and required the employer to pay double damages to a fired worker. In Thom v. American Standard, Inc. the 6th Circuit reviewed whether American Standard violated a molder’s rights when the company terminated the worker while he was on leave for shoulder surgery and before he was scheduled to return to work.

If you have questions concerning your right to take leave, or if you believe your employer interfered with your leave rights, it is important to consult with an experienced employment discrimination attorney in Atlanta to review your circumstance and determine your next steps.

Here, the company amended its FMLA policy but did not inform it’s employees of the changes. When the employee, Carl Thom, requested leave it did not let him know that the amount of leave requested would exceeed the amount of time allowed pursuant to the FMLA. Thom was then fired and the company used his excess leave as justification for his discharge.

Continue reading " Company Ordered To Pay Double Damages For Interfering With Worker's Right To Take Leave " »

Pre-Eligibility Requests For Leave May Give Rise To Claims Of Retaliation in Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys. Inc.

January 20, 2012

In the first case of its kind, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which includes Georgia, Alabama and Florida, considered what actions are considered protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Specifically in Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys. Inc., the appellate court reviewed whether an employee who made a “pre-eligibility” request under the Family and Medical Leave Act is protected from retaliation. In order to be eligible for protection under the FMLA, an employee must work 1,250 hours within the previous 12 months and experience a triggering event, such as the birth of a child.

If you have questions concerning whether you may be eligible to take leave under the FMLA, it is a good idea to consult with a knowledgeable Atlanta employment discrimination attorney. An attorney skilled in practicing family and medical leave law can answer your FMLA questions and provide crucial guidance concerning your next steps.

Here, a female employee – Kathyrn Pereda - was not yet eligible for leave when she first brought it up, but would be eligible at the time she gave birth to her child. Based on the “advanced notice” requirements of the Act, Pereda notified her employer of her pregnancy and her wish to take leave after the birth of her child. After she informed her employer of her pregnancy, Pereda’s supervisors began to harass her. She was placed on a performance improvement plan with “unattainable goals” and was ultimately fired.

Pereda asserted she was retaliated against in violation of the FMLA. Her employer responded that because she was not eligible for FMLA leave when she made the request, her claim for retaliation was not valid. Although the lower court agreed, the 11th Circuit reversed, finding that a “pre-eligibility discussion of post-eligible FMLA is protected activity.”

Continue reading " Pre-Eligibility Requests For Leave May Give Rise To Claims Of Retaliation in Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys. Inc. " »

Woman With Thoughts About Killing Her Supervisor Can Maintain Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination And Retaliation Claims Against Postal Service

January 14, 2012

A recent case out of the seventh circuit found that a woman who disclosed to her psychiatrist that she was having thoughts about killing her supervisor can proceed with race and sex discrimination claims, along with retaliation claims under Title VII.

If you believe you may have been subject to discrimination at work, it is important to speak to an experienced Georgia employment discrimination law firm.

In Coleman v. Donahoe, a female postal employee with fired after she told her psychiatrist about violent thoughts she had concerning her supervisor, including killing him. Denise Coleman was hired in 1974 as a mail-processing clerk, and had a good employment record up until January 2005 when the postal service hired a new supervisor. Within a few months after the new supervisor began working, Coleman sent emails to the head of the postal facility alleging sex discrimination and threatening to file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge.

When Coleman subsequently required surgery and requested sick leave, she was treated to harsh working conditions and asked to perform work that would worsen her condition, such as moving heavy boxes and punching a time clock located outside her stair-climbing range. After Coleman went on leave without punching the clock, her supervisor issued an AWOL notice. Coleman then filed for pre-complaint counseling with the EEOC, identifying her supervisor as subjecting her to discrimination.

While in counseling for depression, anxiety and insomnia, Coleman revealed to her psychiatrist that she had both suicidal and homicidal thoughts, including thoughts of killing her supervisor. After treatment ended, Coleman's psychiatrist informed her supervisor about her homicidal thoughts. Coleman was then immediately terminated by the postal service citing a “no tolerance” policy for work place violence.

Continue reading " Woman With Thoughts About Killing Her Supervisor Can Maintain Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination And Retaliation Claims Against Postal Service " »

Jury Awards Physician $7.6 Million In Retaliation Lawsuit

January 5, 2012

Recently a federal jury awarded a pathologist a $7.6 million retaliation verdict. In Renta v. Cook County, a jury determined that a health agency had retaliated against a physician - Dr. Vivian Renta - after she complained about substandard hospital policies and the quality of care patients were receiving. The verdict represents damages for back pay, front pay, lost pension benefits and pain and suffering.

If you believe you have suffered an adverse employment action as the result of complaining about discrimination – or participated as a witness is someone else’s complaint of discrimination, you may have a claim for retaliation. If you feel you have been treated unfairly at work, consulting with a knowledgeable Georgia employment retaliation attorney is an important first step to determining your rights and evaluating whether you may have a claim.

In Renta, the physician sued after she was terminated and was declared “incompetent,” a virtual “death sentence” for physicians seeking to obtain a new job. As stated by a representative, “An adverse employment decision that takes away a doctor’s right to practice and their privileges at the hospital is the equivalent of the professional death sentence.”

Just what constitutes retaliation may differ in each employment situation. Although in some situations retaliation consists of termination, in other cases, it may be adverse actions such as being placed on undesirable shifts or assigned to a “worse” location.

Continue reading " Jury Awards Physician $7.6 Million In Retaliation Lawsuit " »