Caleb Gross, Author at Decatur Legal Page

Gwinnett College settles HIV-discrimination case brought under Americans with Disabilities Act

Gwinnett College has reached a settlement with a former student who was discriminated against due to her HIV status, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The college has also agreed with federal authorities to make changes to school policies to prevent future discrimination. According to the article, Gwinnett College, Feds Settle Over HIV-positive Student’s Discrimination Complaint, the former Gwinnett College student was told by school officials that because of her HIV status, she could no longer participate in the medical assistant program.

In his interview with the Gwinnett Daily Post, school president Michael Davis stated that he wasn’t aware the school had done anything illegal. The school’s medical assistant program requires that students participate in “live injections.” Even though precautions such as wearing gloves and glasses are mandatory during such practice, Davis stated, “My fear was that these students could get infected by their own stupidity, and that doesn’t mean anything negative.”

As part of the school’s former enrollment process, potential students were asked if they suffer from any blood related diseases such as HIV. Due to the U.S. Attorney’s investigation into its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Gwinnett College is now required to make changes to its enrollment process, change certain policies and procedures, and increase ADA training for school employees. The school is also required to pay damages to the former student.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced discrimination due to a disability, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Lawsuit Challenges North Dakota Gay Marriage Ban

According to the Washington Post article, Lawsuit Challenges North Dakota Gay Marriage Ban, seven North Dakota couples have filed suit in federal court asserting that the state’s ban on same sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. North Dakota is the last of 31 states to join the list of states challenging the ban on same sex marriage as unconstitutional.

In 2004, North Dakota voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting the scope of marriage to heterosexuals. Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision to strike down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman, judges across the United States have nullified the ban on same sex marriage.

In a statement issued by the North Dakota Family Alliance, Executive Director Tom Freier stated that the alliance “will stand on the North Dakota constitution and with the 73% of the people who voted in 2004 to permanently place a definition of marriage in our constitution.”

In part, the complaint filed last week in North Dakota reads, “Same sex couples are identical to different sex couples in all characteristics relevant to marriage,” and “Without any legitimate governmental interest, North Dakota has targeted a minority of individuals for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The suit also states the couples are subject to, “an irreparable denial of their constitutional rights.”

In addition to the District of Columbia, 19 states now recognize and allow same sex couples to marry.

If you or someone you know thinks they their civil rights have been violated, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Georgia Court of Appeals Grants Unemployment Benefits to Victim of Domestic Violence

In a landmark decision in Georgia Unemployment litigation, a three judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals has ruled that a domestic violence victim who quit her job because her violent abuser began seeking her out at work can receive unemployment benefits. The Court’s decision adds yet another circumstance to the growing list of situations under which an employee may voluntarily quit his or her job and still have the potential to receive unemployment benefits. For more, see this article.

The claimant was a cashier who had suffered repeated violent attacks by an ex-boyfriend. She was forced to change jobs and residences to escape this violence, yet the boyfriend somehow discovered where she worked and showed up at her place of work in direct violation of a restraining order. Fearing for her safety, the woman quit her job. The woman’s employer argued that she had quit for personal reasons that were not connected to her work, and she, therefore, should be disqualified from receiving benefits. The Department of Labor agreed, as did a Fulton County Superior Court Judge who reviewed the case. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed.

The case, Scott v. Butler, et al., A14A0105, June 4, 2014, marked the first of its kind in Georgia. The panel’s ruling expanded upon well-settled Georgia law that a person has good cause to quit his or her job when being harassed or threatened by a co-worker or supervisor. Discussing similar rulings from other states, and citing “Georgia’s public policy favoring payment of unemployment benefits to persons who are unemployed through no fault of their own,” the Court held that the [claimant] had “met her burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to unemployment benefits.” The Court went on to note that “[e]ven though the employer did not create or contribute to the dangers at issue, to deny [the claimant] benefits under the circumstances presented would, in effect, require her to work in a dangerous environment wherein she and numerous others would be unnecessarily exposed to the actual threat of violence due to circumstances that are entirely beyond their control. This would be an outcome that is unjust, inequitable, and inconsistent with the expressed purpose of the act.”

No matter the circumstances, if you have quit your job, or are thinking of quitting your job, call us! Voluntary separation cases are much more complex than termination cases, and the team at Radford & Keebaugh has the knowledge, expertise, and experience to guide you through the process. Call us at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Trucking Company to Pay $42,000 in Retaliation Lawsuit

Believing she was being paid less than her male coworkers, on several occasions a female truck driver approached her superiors to discuss her perceived pay disparity. Tina Thompson was fired from her employment with the commercial trucking company one day after sending a text to the owner of the company stating that she believed she was being paid less than her male coworkers due to the fact that is female. After a failed attempt to settle the dispute between the worker and the trucking company, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against Winebrenner Transfer, Inc. for wage discrimination and retaliation, alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the the EEOC’s press release regarding this action, EEOC regional attorney Debra M. Lawrence stated, “Addressing gender based pay discrimination and eliminating employment practices that discourage individuals form exercising their rights under our statutes are two of the agency’s national priority issues.”

A U.S. District Court awarded Ms. Thompson $21,000 in back pay and $21,000 in liquidated damages. In addition to the monetary award, the trucking company is required to implement and disseminate an anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure to all employees and applicants of the company. As required by the court, the owner and vice president of the trucking company will take an anti-discrimination course.

“If an employee complains about pay discrimination, or any form of illegal discrimination, the best course of action for the employer is to investigate and take appropriate action to correct the situation,” stated EEOC District Director, Spencer H. Lewis.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced wage discrimination and/or retaliation, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Settlement Reached in Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Against Chick-Fil-A Franchisee

As detailed in the article, Chick-Fil-A Franchisee at Concord Commons to Pay $10,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit, Heather Morrison, who was six months pregnant at the time, interviewed with a Chick-Fil-A franchise owner for a team member position. During her interview, the owner asked such questions as how many months she had been pregnant; her expected delivery date; her childcare plans after giving birth; and how much maternity leave she planned to take. The owner called Ms. Morrison three days after the interview and informed her that she did not get the job, but to let the company know after she had given birth and made proper childcare arrangements.

After attempts to settle with the franchise failed, a suit was filed by the EEOC, alleging that the owner of the Chick-fil-A franchise was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. “Working women who choose to have children shouldn’t be treated differently from other employees or applicants simply because they are pregnant, ” stated regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office.

In addition to the $10,000 settlement to paid to Ms. Morrison, Chick-Fil-A is required to to develop and implement a policy that prohibits future pregnancy discrimination, conduct annual preventive training on pregnancy discrimination for all Chick-Fil-A employess, and finally, the company is required to report all job openings to the EEOC for a two year period, in addition to its hiring decisions regarding pregnant applicants.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced discrimination due pregnancy, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.