Supreme Court to Hear Challenge of Discrimination Case Dismissal Against Atlanta DA’s Office - Barrett & Farahany

Helping employees find justice in twelve states and the District of Columbia with offices in Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Alabama.

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge of Discrimination Case Dismissal Against Atlanta DA’s Office

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge of Discrimination Case Dismissal Against Atlanta DA’s Office

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge of Discrimination Case Dismissal Against Atlanta DA’s Office | Barrett & Farahany

A former aide to Atlanta’s district attorney will have her challenge to the dismissal of her discrimination lawsuit heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, after lower courts dismissed her claims based on the so-called “personal staff exemption.”

The lawsuit, filed in February 2020 by Barrett & Farahany partners Matthew Billips and Benjamin Stark on behalf of Jasmine Younge, alleges that she faced sexual and racial discrimination while serving as deputy chief of staff and director of policy and programs for the Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office between May and July 2019. Younge, who informed former DA Paul Howard that she was pregnant shortly after being hired, was terminated just two weeks later.

The district court initially dismissed Younge’s race discrimination claims and her sex discrimination claim against Howard, leaving only her Title VII pregnancy claim against the DA’s office. After the office sought summary judgment, Younge dropped her retaliation claim.

A federal magistrate recommended dismissing the case based on the personal staff exemption, which allows certain employees of elected officials to be excluded from anti-discrimination protections. The district court adopted this recommendation, and the Eleventh Circuit upheld the decision, finding Younge was a member of the DA’s personal staff and therefore not protected under Title VII.

Younge challenged the application of the exemption, arguing the DA’s office improperly raised it in its summary judgment motion instead of its original answer. The Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the case now sets the stage for a decision that could have wide-reaching implications for workplace protections in public offices.

Learn more in this Law360 article.

Complimentary
Case Review

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By providing a telephone number, e-mail address, and submitting this form, you are consenting to be contacted by e-mail & SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.