Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

Farm Workers in Southwest Georgia Land $100K Federal Court Settlement in Unpaid Overtime Dispute

July 21, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

When you sue because you were denied overtime pay you rightfully earned, there are several critical decisions you’ll need to make, including those related to settling the case. These include answering questions like: Do I settle now or hold out? and Is this offer amount a fair sum? It also involves determining whether the proposed settlement agreement is genuinely fair and properly protects your interests. When it comes to making these essential decisions, don’t go it alone, but instead rely on the knowledgeable advice of an experienced Atlanta unpaid overtime lawyer.

The settlement of a recent Fair Labor Standards Act case from rural southwest Georgia demonstrates how essential it is to ensure, not only that you have the right settlement amount, but also the right settlement agreement.

The plaintiffs were a group of several dozen workers who processed animals at a Georgia slaughterhouse. The workers were hourly employees who allegedly, on several occasions, worked more than 40 hours in a week but did not receive the overtime pay they should have.

Even Just a Small Number of Interstate Phone Calls Was Enough to Give a Worker a Potentially Winning FLSA Case

July 14, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

If you have been harmed at work, such as a failure by your employer to pay you minimum wage or your failure to receive overtime pay you’ve earned, you’ll face many hurdles. One of these may be people – whether it’s your employer or third parties – trying to convince you that you have no case. Don’t rely on the opinions of the naysayers. Instead, make your decisions only after you’ve sought out and obtained advice from a knowledgeable Atlanta wage-and-hour lawyer. You might be surprised what options the law has for you.

W.S.E. was a worker whose unpaid overtime case illustrates this point well. Even though W.S.E. worked (and sued) in Florida, her case was decided by the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the court whose opinions control federal cases in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, so the ruling has a direct impact on you if you’re pursuing a Fair Labor Standards Act case in federal court here in Georgia.

W.S.E., an administrative assistant with a small pest-control services company that served the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach area, filed an FLSA lawsuit in which she accused her employer of improperly failing to pay overtime it owed her.

Georgia Law and What It Says About the Rights of Working Moms Who Are Also Breastfeeding Moms

July 7, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

If you are familiar with the science surrounding breastfeeding, you know that a mother’s breast milk offers her baby many health benefits. In fact, earlier this year, a report in the Augusta Chronicle trumpeted a study from the Medical College of Georgia that revealed that a mother’s breast milk contains special “protective factors” against the COVID-19 virus. With all these health benefits, it is no wonder that so many new mothers, including working moms, strive to breastfeed or express (“pump”) breast milk for their babies. Of course, as working moms know, balancing employment and maternal obligations can be tricky, especially at some workplaces. Fortunately, there are laws in place, so if you’ve been the victim of workplace discrimination triggered by your breastfeeding, expressing milk, or other pregnancy-related condition, then you should contact an experienced Atlanta pregnancy discrimination lawyer to discuss your options.

Here in Georgia, the laws protecting breastfeeding moms in the workplace got a lot stronger last year. The legislature passed a bill that significantly modified O.C.G.A 34-1-6. Before the change, the law said that an “employer may provide reasonable unpaid break time each day to an employee who needs to express breast milk for her infant child. The employer may make reasonable efforts to provide a room or other location (in close proximity to the work area), other than a toilet stall, where the employee can express her milk in privacy.”

It is important to “unpack” all of the details of this statute to understand the challenges breastfeeding moms on the job faced before the new bill became law. Almost every time you see the word “may” in a statute, it means “optional.” So, before August 2020, employers could provide break time to nursing moms – and could provide a space to breastfeed or pump — if the employer wanted to. The law imposed no demands on the employer at all. And that break time, if the employer provided it, was unpaid.

Federal District Court in Georgia Rules that Employee’s Discrimination Lawsuit Should Be Stayed Pending Arbitration

June 25, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It is important to note, however, that not every would-be litigant will have his or her day in court. While the right to have the issues considered by a jury of one’s peers is non-negotiable in a criminal matter, the same is not necessarily true in a civil case.

In a civil matter such as an Atlanta employment discrimination case, there may be the possibility that the matter will be submitted for arbitration rather than proceeding via the traditional litigation process. This is because an increasing number of employers are requiring employees to sign agreements to arbitrate as a condition of employment.

Generally speaking, employers prefer arbitration over litigation because they believe that the attorney fees and legal costs will ultimately be lower and the outcome is more likely to be pro-employer than if the case is heard by a jury. Of course, each case must stand on its own merits, regardless of whether it is litigated, arbitrated, or resolved in some other manner.

Georgia Woman’s Title VII Employment Law Case Against Military Branch Dismissed on Summary Judgment by Federal District Court

June 18, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Many Atlanta employment law claims, including those pertaining to an allegedly hostile work environment and/or unlawful discrimination, will at some point go through “summary judgment” proceedings. While not every court case goes through this step in the litigation process, it is not unusual for a case to be resolved at this stage rather than proceeding to trial.

Resolution of a case during summary judgment is tantamount to telling the plaintiff that he or she simply does not have enough evidence that, even if any disputes are resolved in his or her favor by the jury, there would ultimately be a judgment in his or her favor. In other words, summary judgment is a helpful tool when viewed as a way to encourage judicial economy, saving only cases that require a jury’s deliberation for full-blown trials.

Of course, a trial court’s decision on summary judgment is not necessarily the death knell to a plaintiff’s case. Sometimes, summary judgment is reversed on appeal, and the matter is sent back down to the trial court for further proceedings.

Federal Employment Discrimination and Hostile Workplace Lawsuit Provides Guidance for Would-be Georgia Litigants

June 11, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Filing a claim for employment discrimination is not a particularly difficult process, so long as the basic rules for form and timeliness are observed. Winning an employment discrimination lawsuit based on such a claim is a very different matter, however.

Simply believing that one has been the victim of unlawful actions in the workplace is not enough to prevail on a discrimination claim in a court of law. Rather, there must be competent, credible evident that will support each and every element of the plaintiff’s case.

In fact, a case will probably not even be submitted for a jury’s consideration unless there are genuine issues of material fact that, if resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, would entitle him or her to a legal remedy such as money damages or injunctive relief. Thus, it is very important that a would-be litigant in an Atlanta employment discrimination case seek the assistance of qualified legal counsel before going forward.

Georgia Man’s Whistleblower Suit Asserting Unlawful Retaliation Dismissed by Federal District Court

June 5, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Under federal law, persons and companies who defraud the government can be held liable in a court of law for their wrongdoing. Not every false claim filed against a governmental entity will subject the filer to liability, however, as there are certain requirements that must be shown before the applicable statute will be enforced.

An important component of the federal law in question concerns the filing of a qui tam action. Under this provision, an individual, private person can file suit against an allegedly fraudulent filer on behalf of the government. If the suit is ultimately successful, it is possible that both the government and the private person may be awarded monetary compensation.

Additionally, there are provisions in place to protect a private person who files a qui tam action on the government’s behalf. Such “whistleblowers” may not be lawfully discharged on account of their actions in filing on behalf of the government to recoup monies lost due to fraudulent claims. Of course, a person with an Atlanta whistleblower protection claim may still be terminated for other, non-discriminatory reasons.

Federal Age Discrimination Claim Against Georgia Governmental Entity Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

May 28, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Just as in other types of civil cases, an Atlanta age discrimination lawsuit is subject to dismissal if the court in which it is filed lacks subject matter jurisdiction. When a court lacks this type of jurisdiction, it does not have the authority to render a binding decision in the case, and, thus, it must dismiss any claims over which it has no jurisdiction.

Usually, matters of jurisdiction are dealt with fairly early in the litigation process. This is typically done through a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Rule 12(b)(6).

Facts of the Case

In a recent age discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff was a 72-year-old man who applied for work as a facilities maintenance/construction manager with the defendant governmental agency in 2018. The defendant did not extend an offer of employment to the plaintiff, despite him having more than 40 years of experience in construction project management. Rather, the defendant chose to hire a younger, less-experienced candidate for the job. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the defendant had unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Georgians Who Seek Redress for Employment-Related Retaliation Must Show Appropriate Connections to Alleged Wrongdoing

May 21, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an Atlanta employment retaliation case, the plaintiff must show a certain kind of connection to the defendant – and to the violation of the law that allegedly occurred – in order to move forward with his or her case. Sometimes, this is an easy and obvious step of the litigation process.

Other times, the battle is more difficult. Unless the plaintiff can make this necessary connection, his or her case is likely to fail.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiffs were family members of a woman who worked for the defendant bank during the year 2008. The woman was employed as a personal assistant to the bank’s president and CEO during that time. After she was fired, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the president/CEO had sexually harassed her and then retaliated against her for complaining about the harassment. The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant bank was that it had taken adverse action against them in retaliation for the former employee’s protected conduct. (The plaintiffs had various business relationships with the defendant.)

Georgia Employees’ FLSA Claims to be Amended in Attempt at Class Certification

May 14, 2021 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In attempting to assert an Atlanta employment law claim, it important that the plaintiff include the appropriate allegations and requests for relief. Sometimes, however, more information becomes available as the case develops, such that a plaintiff may attempt to file an “amended complaint” to include the new information or an updated demand for relief.

Depending upon the court rules and the status of the proceedings, the plaintiff may or may not need the court’s permission to file an amended complaint. Likewise, the defendant may wish to alter its answer. A timely request to amend the pleadings is important, regardless of whether it is the plaintiff or the defendant who is making the request.

An amended pleading may appear to give the parties more than a single “bite at the apple,” so to speak. However, there are limitations on what can be accomplished via an amendment, as rules such as the statute of limitations still apply.