O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
No employer shall discharge, expel, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate against any person or applicant for employment because such person has opposed any practice made an unfair employment practice by this chapter or because such person has filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, action, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter; nor shall any employment agency discriminate against any person; nor shall a labor organization discriminate against any member or applicant for membership for such reasons.
History
(Code 1933, § 66-505, enacted by Ga. L. 1981, p. 1803, § 2; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1302, § 4.)
Annotations
RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 14 C.J.S., Civil Rights, §§ 92, 98, 108. ALR. - Who has ‘‘participated’’ in investigation proceeding or hearing and is
thereby protected from retaliation under § 704(a) of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a)), 149 ALR Fed. 431.
34-6A-6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 34-6A-6
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case:
Bowers v. Estep, 420 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
Bowers v. Estep, 420 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Bowers further contended in an amendment to the complaint that appellee railroad’s denial of his bonus in late 1990 after he filed this handicap discrimination claim was a retaliatory act prohibited by OCGA § 34-6A-5. Both appellants also alleged a claim for loss of consortium…”
Gary W. Johnson v. Lindsay Pope Brayfield & Assocs., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “Because the basis of his claim was thus not his opposition to any “practice made an unfair employment practice by” the Georgia Act, which is the prerequisite for a claim that a firing was retaliatory, OCGA § 34-6A-5,3 the trial court also did not err in granting summary judgment…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.