Atlanta Employment Defense Lawyers for Employers

Employment litigation in the public record

The Abdallah v. Coca-Cola court order identifies Thomas G. Sampson and Jeffrey E. Tompkins among the company’s defense counsel in employment class-action litigation. It concerns notice of a proposed settlement, not a defense verdict. Explore the Coca-Cola case study.

The firm and Jeffrey E. Tompkins also appear among counsel for the appellees in Dixon v. MARTA, an employment-related appeal with a mixed result. Read the MARTA case study.

Where TKST can help

Build a factual account that the records can support

The reason for a workplace decision should be understood from contemporaneous records and people with direct knowledge. Review what the policy required, who made the decision, what information they considered and how similar circumstances were handled. Avoid filling gaps with assumptions. A coordinated response also addresses communications with current employees and the continuing treatment of the person who raised the concern. TKST connects those operational issues with the defense of the claim.

For practical prevention steps and a response checklist, read Woody Sampson’s employee retaliation guide for Atlanta and Georgia employers.

Identify the proceeding and the immediate obligations

An internal complaint, an EEOC charge, a Department of Labor inquiry, and a court complaint are different matters. Each may involve different procedures and response requirements. Keep the original notice and attachments, identify the employing entity, and record when the material was received. Counsel should review the allegations and applicable deadlines promptly rather than assume that the same response will satisfy every agency or court.

The EEOC’s employer guide to a filed charge explains that a charge is an allegation and describes investigation and possible mediation. An employer should prepare a factual, supported response. That requires gathering the decision history and underlying records, not simply repeating a manager’s conclusion that the organization acted properly.

Reconstruct the decision at the time it was made

Identify who recommended, reviewed, and approved the challenged action. Collect the policies, performance records, attendance information, correspondence, and other materials those people actually considered. A later explanation should not be substituted for the original reason. If records are incomplete, disclose that issue to counsel rather than creating a retrospective document that appears contemporaneous.

Consistency deserves careful examination. Comparable situations may reveal whether a policy was applied similarly, but comparison requires attention to roles, supervisors, conduct, timing, and other relevant circumstances. Two employees with the same job title may not present the same facts. Equally, a superficial distinction should not be used to avoid a meaningful review. The goal is an accurate account that can withstand questions.

Preserve records without disrupting lawful workplace activity

Potentially relevant material may include personnel files, scheduling systems, messages, payroll data, complaint records, training documents, and access logs. Identify records held by third-party vendors and former managers. Ask counsel how to suspend routine deletion where appropriate and preserve original versions. Limit unnecessary access to sensitive personnel information while ensuring the people managing the response can locate what is needed.

Employee relations continue during the dispute. Avoid discussing allegations more broadly than necessary, promising absolute confidentiality, or pressuring witnesses to support a preferred account. Separate ordinary performance management from the legal response and document legitimate decisions accurately. The EEOC’s retaliation guidance for employers is a useful reminder that protected participation or complaints can create distinct legal protections.

Investigate with a clear scope and reliable methods

An investigation should identify the questions to be answered, relevant witnesses, and available evidence. Interview people about what they observed and the basis for their knowledge. Preserve conflicting accounts instead of forcing an artificial agreement. Consider whether the person directing the review has a conflict or is part of the challenged decision. Counsel can help assess the appropriate structure and the treatment of legal advice.

Findings should distinguish established facts, unresolved conflicts, and conclusions that depend on missing information. A policy violation and a legally actionable violation are not necessarily identical. Remedial decisions may be appropriate even when liability remains disputed. The employer should also consider whether a narrow complaint reveals a broader training, reporting, or recordkeeping problem that warrants attention on its own merits.