Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §34-1-3, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 1156, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 590, § 2.)
- Right to trial by jury, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XI.
Exemptions from jury duty, § 15-12-1 et seq. and § 38-2-276.
Selection of jurors, § 15-12-40 et seq.
Jury leave for teachers, § 20-2-870 et seq.
- For survey article on labor and employment law for the period from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 303 (2003).
- Attendance rules in an employer's handbook did not comply with O.C.G.A. § 34-1-3 because the rules stated somewhat confusingly that an employee was only protected for work absences due to a court required appearance, which was defined as: an employee was not a named party in the proceedings, and an employee was accompanying a minor child or stepchild who has been subpoenaed to testify as a witness; the statute's protection is not limited to employees accompanying a minor child subpoenaed to testify. Thomas v. HL-A Co., 313 Ga. App. 94, 720 S.E.2d 648 (2011).
- As it was undisputed that the particular reason the employee was terminated was that the employee was absent from work while attending juvenile court proceedings, that termination was in violation of O.C.G.A. § 34-1-3. Glover v. Scott, 210 Ga. App. 25, 435 S.E.2d 250 (1993).
- Trial court erred in granting a former employer's motion for summary judgment in a former employee's action alleging that the employer improperly terminated the employee in violation of O.C.G.A. § 34-1-3(a) for attending a juvenile court proceeding because the employee presented competent circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the employee was fired in retaliation for arguing to management that the employee was statutorily entitled to be excused since the employee was attending court pursuant to a witness subpoena; the employer failed to come forward with competent evidence showing a proper reason for the termination, and the subpoena commanding the employee to appear in court was facially valid. Thomas v. HL-A Co., 313 Ga. App. 94, 720 S.E.2d 648 (2011).
Cited in In re Hadaway, 290 Ga. App. 453, 659 S.E.2d 863 (2008).
- O.C.G.A. § 34-1-3 does not create a separate criminal offense; however, a violation can be grounds for contempt of court. 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-13.
- An employee is entitled to be paid the employee's salary while missing work to serve on jury duty. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-55.
- "Judicial proceeding" as used in subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 34-1-3 includes judicial proceedings in other states; therefore, a person employed in Georgia who has been penalized for being absent from work for the purpose of attending a judicial proceeding in another state in response to a jury summons from a court in that other state has a civil cause of action against the employer. 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-13.
- Protection of debtor from acts of discrimination by private entity under § 525(b) of Bankruptcy Code of 1978 (11 USCS § 525(b)), 105 A.L.R. Fed. 555.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-03-27
Citation: 528 S.E.2d 238, 272 Ga. 279, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 1130, 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 211, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 290, 82 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 483
Snippet: action." [7] OCGA § 34-1-2. [8] E.g., OCGA § 34-1-3 (providing a civil remedy for an employee who is
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1983-09-07
Citation: 306 S.E.2d 257, 251 Ga. 375
Snippet: to exercise certain power themselves, OCGA § 36-34-1 (3) (Code Ann. § 69-309), not to define the means