O.C.G.A. § 49-4-168.4 (2019)
Protection of employees from discrimination; relief; statute of limitations
(a) Any employee, contractor, or agent shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make such employee, contractor, or agent whole, if that employee, contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by such employee, contractor, agent or associated others in furtherance of a civil action under this Code section or other efforts to stop one or more violations of this article.
(b) Relief under subsection (a) of this Code section shall include reinstatement with the same seniority status that such employee, contractor, or agent would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. A civil action under this subsection may be brought in an appropriate court of this state for the relief provided in this Code section.
(c) Notwithstanding Code Section 49-4-168.5, a civil action under this Code section may not be brought more than three years after the date when the discrimination occurred.
History
Code 1981, § 49-4-168.4, enacted by Ga.
L. 2007, p. 355, § 3/HB 551; Ga. L. 2012, p. 127, § 2-1/HB 822.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Failure to show that individual responsible for termination knew of plaintiff’s claim. - Summary judgment was properly granted to all the defendants on the plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the Georgia False Medicaid Claim Act, O.C.G.A. § 49-4-168 et seq., because the plaintiff failed to show that the CEO of a physicians services group and a hospital was aware of the plaintiff’s complaint under the Stark Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, at the time the CEO decided to terminate the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not make the plaintiff’s Stark Act complaint directly to the CEO; the administrative manager for the physician services group did not testify that the manager advised the CEO about the plaintiff’s complaint of a potential Stark Act violation; and the CEO never stated in the CEO’s deposition that the CEO was aware of the plaintiff’s com-
plaint. Murray v. Cmty. Health Sys. Prof’l Corp., 345 Ga. App. 279, 811 S.E.2d 531, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 158 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1066, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 697 (Ga. Oct. 9, 2018). Retaliation claim improperly dismissed. - Trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the Georgia False Medicaid Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 49-4-168 et seq., because the allegation in the plaintiff’s prior complaint that contained a judicial admission that precluded the plaintiff from alleging that the Faculty Practice was the plaintiff’s employer was no longer binding after the plaintiff filed the second amended complaint. Hill v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 351 Ga. App. 455, 829 S.E.2d 193, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 423 (2019), cert. denied, No. S19C1531, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 164 (Ga. Feb. 28, 2020).