Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination in the workplace on several bases including race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII laws apply to all private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor organizations and the federal government if they employ at least 15 employees.

However, where religious employers are involved, the circuits are split.

In a recent decision involving the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Tenth circuit determined that a woman’s duty’s as the director of the department of religious formation placed her squarely within the ministerial exception to federal employment discrimination laws. Applying the ministerial exception, as endorsed by the Tenth, Fifth, Ninth, and District of Columbia, a church employee’s hostile environment claim improperly entangles of church and federal law. As a result, these circuits have held that not only are religious employers shielded from hostile environment claims, but all forms of discrimination under Title VII, including equal pay and age discrimination.

Although the ministerial exception typically applies to ministers, the exception covers any employee shown to be important to a church’s “spiritual and pastoral mission.”

This decision is at odds with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in a previous case, Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004) that a minister’s hostile environment claims against a church may be viable “so log as the church does not claim ‘doctrinal reasons for tolerating of failing to stop the [alleged] sexual harassment.”

The interplay between church tenets and federal sexual discrimination laws continues to evolve, with differences from circuit to circuit – even amongst the courts within a circuit.

Continue reading "Ministerial Exception Applies to All Title VII Claims" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

On April 21st, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that reasonable attorney fee awards may include enhancements for superior performance under a federal fee-shifting statute in civil rights cases. (Perdue v. Kenny A., U.S. No. http://08-970, 4/21/10). However, the enhancement may only be allowed in “extraordinary circumstances.”

The issue of when an enhancement may be allowed was raised in a civil rights class action brought on behalf of foster children throughout Fulton County and DeKalb County, Georgia by private attorneys and non-profit children’s rights advocacy groups alleging that the State’s foster case system violated 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, as well as other state and federal laws. After 3 years of extensive motion and discovery work, both sides resolved the issue through mediation, entering into a consent decree aimed at implementing sweeping reforms.

As part of the decree, plaintiffs’ attorneys were entitled to fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. Fees allowed under Sec. 1988 are subject to the same standards as those allowed pursuant to federal employment discrimination and wage/hour statutes.

The fees were determined by a lodestar figure (reasonable hourly rate multiplied by hours worked). The lodestar figure was then enhanced by a factor of 1.75 based on the plaintiffs’ attorney’s quality of work – which the district court noted, “far exceeded what the foster children could have received in the private market” and the exceptional results achieved.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Determines Fee Enhancements Are Allowed For Superior Performance" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

When Congress returns from its April recess, several significant employment and labor related issues will be addressed. These include legislation prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, fair pay and paid sick leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Under current law, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of any protected category. This means that any private employers, state and local government, employment agencies, labor organizations or federal government who employs more than 15 employees cannot discriminate against you regarding almost any employment matter – including hiring, firing and discipline.

Senate bill 1584 and H.R. 3017,the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, seek to extend the protections already in place for race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability to “gender identity.”

The Legislation defines “gender identity” as “gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designation at birth.”

Other legislation being considered includes the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 182, H.R. 12) which seeks to amend the Equal Pay Act to create greater consequences for sex discrimination regarding wages. These include non-retaliation requirements, as well as increasing penalties and providing for compensatory and punitive damages where violations occur.

Continue reading "Congress To Review New Employment Discrimination Laws " »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination , FMLA

Bookmark:

In Landis v. Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an agreement to arbitrate claims is enforceable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). Although the Sixth Circuit does not have jurisdiction over the courts of Georgia, and a lower-level federal court in Georgia has held to the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit has not yet weighed in on the issue, so the case may be relevant if the issue reaches the Eleventh Circuit.

In the case, Dr. Timothy Landis signed an employment agreement in which he agreed to resolve all disputes related to the agreement through arbitration. During his employment, he was called to military duty in Afghanistan as a member of the Indiana National Guard. Although he contended that the parties had amended the employment agreement prior to his departure for Afghanistan, there was no formal amendment to the agreement. On his return from active duty, the employer refused to honor the alleged revised agreement, demoted Landis, and threatened to fire him if he had any future involvement in the military.

In response, Landis filed an employment discrimination claim under the USERRA, claiming that his employer had discriminated against him based on his military service. The lower court granted the employer’s motion to stay the case and ordered that it be arbitrated based on the arbitration clause contained in the employment agreement, holding that the USERRA did not preempt the arbitration clause.

Continue reading "Agreement to Arbitrate USERRA Discrimination Claim is Enforceable" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

The blawgosphere has been buzzing about the supposed death of punitive damages in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, in which the Court held that, as a matter of federal maritime law, the maximum amount of a defendant’s liability for punitive damages is equal to one times the amount of compensatory damages awarded.

The employment discrimination bar has been particularly concerned about Exxon’s impact in employment cases. For example, the Workplace Prof Blog notes that the 1:1 ratio “if applied to employment cases, would have devastating impact.”

We don’t believe that Exxon will have a significant impact on employment discrimination cases. First and perhaps most significant, the case is not controlling precedent in the employment discrimination context, as it was decided under federal maritime law, and the court relied heavily on state statutes in arriving at the 1:1 ratio. As neither of these sources of law has any bearing on employment discrimination law, the direct precedential effect of Exxon should be limited.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages in Employment Discrimination Cases after Exxon: The Death of Punies has been Greatly Exaggerated" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

We recently wrote about the Senate’s passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, a federal law that would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on the results of genetic tests and also prohibit health insurance companies from relying on the results of genetic tests in setting premium rates or making enrollment eligibility decisions.

The good news is that on May 1, 2008, the House got on board by passing an identical version of the bill, by a margin of 414-1, with the only dissenting vote coming from Texas Republican and former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

President Bush has already expressed his support for the law and is expected to sign it in the near future.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

Unfortunately, we’re seeing a lot of discrimination cases involving armed forces personnel these days. Under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), employers may not discriminate against active armed services personnel and veterans in employment, but unfortunately a lot of employers are ignoring the law. A recent case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, although not from a Georgia court, is a good reminder of the rights of armed services personnel and veterans to be free from employment discrimination.

In Davis v. Advocate Health Center Patient Care Express, Advocate briefly employed Robert Davis, a Vietnam veteran, as an answering service agent in the spring of 2007. During his probationary period, Advocate fired Davis, and Davis in turn filed a federal discrimination case against Advocate under the USERRA, claiming that it fired him because of his prior military service. Davis also asked the court to waive the filing fee for his case, claiming that the USERRA excused him from having to pay such fees. The lower court disagreed with Davis, concluding that the statute did not waive fees because such an interpretation would encourage frivolous lawsuits.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with Davis and reversed the lower court, holding that Congress’s intent in enacting the statute was to waive the filing fee for covered service personnel. The court noted that his rule applies whether or not the individual can actually afford to pay the fee.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark:

In a unanimous 95-0 vote, the U.S. Senate passed an anti-discrimination bill on April 24th that would prohibit employers from using genetic information in making employment-related decisions. The proposed law, known as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, bars employers from using the results of an employee’s genetic test in hiring, firing, or promotion decisions and also prohibits health insurance companies from using genetic information in making enrollment or eligibility decisions or in setting premiums.

With the recent dramatic advances in genetic science, there are now more than 1,000 genetic tests available, but most employees do not take advantage of such tests for fear their employers will discriminate against them based on their test results. This fear could prevent millions of employees from taking genetic tests—tests that could help employees identify serious health conditions and allow them to seek out early intervention and treatment. If the law passes, employees will no longer need to fear retaliation from their employers, and they can get the testing and treatment they need.

The House is expected to pass the bill in the near future, and President Bush has already expressed his support for it. We’ll keep you posted.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination

Bookmark: