Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

The United States Supreme Court has recently issued a number of very employee-friendly employment discrimination decisions. In this post and our next few posts, we will discuss these important employment discrimination decisions.

In the first case, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, the Court addressed the issue of whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) permits actions for retaliatory discharge. Section 1981 is a Civil War-era federal civil rights law that gives “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States . . . the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Plaintiffs often choose to file race discrimination claims under Section 1981 in addition to Title VII claims because there is no requirement to first file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, Section 1981’s statue of limitations is much longer than Title VII’s 180-day limitations period, and Section 1981 has no cap on damages. However, unlike Title VII, Section 1981 does not contain language prohibiting retaliation, and many courts have therefore held that retaliation claims are not available under the statute.

In the case, Hedrick Humphries was an African-American manager of a Cracker Barrel restaurant who claimed he was discharged because of his race and because he had complained that another African-American employee had been discriminated against because of his race. Accordingly, he brought suit under both Title VII and Section 1981. The lower court dismissed Humphries’ Title VII claim on procedural grounds and granted Cracker Barrel’s motion for summary judgment on Humphries’ Section 1981 claim, holding that retaliation claims are not available under the statute.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Wrap-Up: Supremes Rule that Section 1981 Encompasses Claims for Retaliation" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Race Discrimination , Retaliation

Bookmark:

We just received a good result from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court for the states of Georgia, Florida and Alabama) in a race discrimination and retaliation case and, at the risk of seeming immodest, we’d like to share it with you. It’s a very employee-friendly decision on the issue of what is an adverse action under the discrimination laws, and the court held that when a company makes a discriminatory decision that it later corrects, the employer’s after-the-fact corrective action does not cure the initially discriminatory act.

In the case, Crawford v. Carroll, our client, Jacquelyn Crawford, is an African American female who was employed at Georgia State University in various capacities in its human resources department. Her dispute with GSU began with a disciplinary action she received for allegedly violating the school’s bereavement leave policy. When she complained about this discipline, she claimed she was subjected to retaliation by her Caucasian supervisor in the form of unreasonable job demands and overly critical scrutiny of her work.

The dispute then escalated when Crawford was denied a promotion to a position that was posted several times during a two-year period even though several managers believed she was the most qualified applicant for the position. During this period, Crawford’s Caucasian supervisors issued her a negative performance review, which made her ineligible for a merit pay increase that she was scheduled to receive in October 2002. In response, Crawford filed an internal complaint contending that the poor performance review and resulting disqualification for the merit pay increase were racially discriminatory and retaliatory.

While her internal complaint was pending, the position that Crawford had been denied was posted for a third time. This time, Crawford was not even selected for an interview, and GSU recommended that a Caucasian male be awarded the position.

Continue reading "Discriminatory Denial of Pay Raise Cannot be Cured by Later Raise" »

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Race Discrimination , Retaliation

Bookmark:

“Despite considerable racial progress, racism persists as an evil to be remedied in our Nation.” These words, penned by Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William H. Pryor, are from an important race discrimination case recently decided by the federal appeals court for Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, in which the court affirmed a verdict of more than half a million dollars to an African-American employee who was fired after he refused to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement. Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co.

Greg Goldsmith was exposed to a stream of severe racist comments and conduct during his employment, and, although he complained about it repeatedly, his employer failed to correct the problem. He filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC. While his charge was pending, the company adopted a mandatory arbitration policy that required all employees to arbitrate all discrimination claims, and it presented the policy to all of its employees to sign. Mr. Goldsmith, however, was the only employee who had a pending discrimination charge against the company. When Mr. Goldsmith refused to sign the arbitration agreement, he was immediately discharged, but other employees who had initially refused to sign the agreement were not discharged.

In Mr. Goldsmith’s subsequent race discrimination case, he argued that his discharge was in retaliation for his refusal to sign the arbitration policy. The jury agreed, awarding him $50,000 in back pay and emotional distress damages and $500,000 in punitive damages.

On the employer’s appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict, holding that because Goldsmith had agreed to sign the arbitration policy had the company agreed to exclude his pending charge from the policy, and because the company had tried to convince white employees who initially refused to sign the agreement to change their mind, but it simply discharged Goldsmith, there was sufficient evidence of retaliatory animus by the employer to support the verdict.

Posted by Buckley & Klein | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Race Discrimination

Bookmark: