On March 12, 2013, House Bill 154, which makes some significant changes to Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation Act, passed the Georgia Senate and has now been sent to the Governor for his consideration. If signed by the Governor, the amendments to Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation Act will take effect July 1, 2013.

House Bill 154 increases the maximum weekly TTD rate from $500.00 per week to $525.00 per week and increases the maximum weekly TPD rate from $334.00 per week to $350.00 per week. This will be first increase in the weekly indemnity benefit rates since July 1, 2007.

Perhaps most significantly, House Bill 154 caps an employer’s liability for payment of medical benefits at 400 weeks from the date of the injury in all cases arising on or after July 1, 2013, which have not been designated by the State Board as catastrophic cases. To be compensable, the recommended treatment still has to be reasonably required and appear likely to effect a cure, give relief or restore the employee to suitable employment.

An employer is liable for an employee’s mileage expenses in traveling to and from required medical appointments. Mileage expenses will need to be recorded on a form to be created by the State Board and submitted to the employer or its workers’ compensation carrier for payment. House Bill 154 requires properly submitted mileage expenses be paid by the employer or its workers’ compensation carrier within fifteen (15) days of receiving the charges and reports required by the State Board. Penalties are included for properly submitted mileage charges which are not paid within fifteen days of receipt of properly submitted mileage expenses.

House Bill 154 also makes some significant changes to the provisions of the Act dealing with refusal of suitable employment by an injured employee and attempting or refusing to attempt work with restrictions. Under the previous version of O.C.G.A. Section 34-9-240, if an employee released to return to work with restrictions was offered a job within the stated restrictions, he or she had to attempt the job, but if unable to perform the job for more than fifteen (15) working days, the employer/insurer were required to automatically reinstate payment of weekly indemnity benefits. Per the amendment in House Bill 154, if the employee attempts the proffered job for eight cumulative hours or one scheduled workday, whichever is greater, but is unable to perform the job for more than fifteen (15) working days, then weekly indemnity benefits have to be reinstated. If the employee with restrictions attempts the proffered job for less than eight hours or one scheduled workday, whichever is greater, or refuses to attempt the proffered job, payment of weekly benefits may be suspended and the burden of proof shifts to the employee to prove a continuing entitlement to benefits. This change should encourage employees with restrictions to make a sincere effort, at least for one day, in performing the tasks of light duty jobs which have been approved by their authorized treating physicians and offered by their employers.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has issued a new Employment Eligibility Verification Form (“Form I-9) to be implemented immediately by all employers.

The USCIS has issued a newly revised Form I-9 to be implemented by all employers as of Friday, March 8, 2013. Employers are mandated to use the Form I-9 for verification of the eligibility of all persons, citizens and non-citizens, hired for employment in the United States.

The revised From I-9 contains changes that, along with enhanced instructions, should make easier and more accurate the completion of the form. Employers should note that the revised Form I-9 also contains additional data fields that must be completed.

Employers should not obtain a revised Form I-9 for any current employees who have a valid older version Form I-9 on file.

While there is a 60-day grace period for employers to switch over to the new Form I-9, any employer utilizing an older Form I-9 after May 7, 2013 shall be subject to all applicable penalty provisions of Section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, which can include criminal penalties in addition to injunctions and civil fines.

The new Form I-9 “(Rev. 03/08/13)N” is available for downloading at the USCIS website.

Please Contact Us with any questions you may have regarding the newly revised Form I-9.

When Congress passed the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) of 1963 [29 U.S.C. § 206], which is gender-neutral by its terms, it was hailed as “the first step towards an adjustment of balance in pay for women.” Congr. Rep. Frances P. Bolton. The passage of the EPA was clearly motivated by a desire to remedy long-standing discrimination against women in the form of lower wages than was paid their male counterparts for the same or substantially the same work.

Times change, and the federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision last month that affirms the old adage, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

Ronald Edwards began working for Fulton County, Georgia in 1994 as a Community Development Specialist. Fulton County pays its salaried employees, such as Edwards, according to a “decision-band” method, which designates a salary range for various positions according to the particular position’s decision-making authority, job complexity, and supervisory responsibilities. As a Specialist, Edwards’ decision-band classification was C43 and his salary corresponded to that range.

Edwards subsequently took on responsibilities beyond his decision-band, including supervising two senior housing inspectors and managing two housing programs. Despite taking on the additional duties beyond his job description and salary classification, his pay remained within the C43 salary range. Edwards complained to his supervisors, and they in turn reported the complaint to higher County officials and recommended that Edwards receive greater compensation. The County, however, never awarded a pay increase commensurate with Edwards’ duties.

In January 2007, Carolyn Stewart began employment with the County as a Community Development Specialist. Initially, like Edwards, she was paid a salary in the C43 range. Later that month, however, the County promoted Stewart to the position of Community Development Manager where she would manage three programs and supervise one employee. As a result of the promotion, Stewart was classified in the C52 range (the higher the range number, the higher the salary range), with a higher salary then Edwards.

Edwards filed a grievance with the County in May 2007, asserting he had been underpaid since 1999 when the County had given him the additional responsibilities without a corresponding increase in pay. Edwards believed that Stewart’s additional pay for performing substantially similar duties was gender discrimination in violation of the EPA, and he filed suit in federal district court alleging, among other things, a violation of the EPA.

The District Court dismissed his claims, finding he did not make a sufficient showing that his and Stewart’s positions were “equal” within the meaning of the Act. The Court therefore determined that Edwards had not established a prima facie case (a case sufficient to be submitted to a jury). In addition, the District Court determined the County had provided a legitimate explanation for its failure to provide a salary increase to Edwards, and that Edwards had failed to show the explanation was a pretext for discrimination.

Edwards appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the District Court. The Court of Appeals first examined the pertinent language of the EPA and determined that Edwards had produced enough evidence on the issue of whether his and Stewart’s positions were equal within the meaning of the EPA that the claim could be submitted to a jury.

The Court noted that an employer violates the EPA where it pays employees of one gender lower wages “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). The Court further noted that the EPA is a form of a strict liability statute, because in making out a prima facie case of a violation of the EPA an employee need not show an employer had discriminatory intent.

Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the defendant can defeat the prima facie case by showing that the lower wages were the result of a seniority system, merit system, production quota system, or any factor other than gender. None of the former categories were present in this case, so it fell to the County to proffer some other factor outside of gender that would explain the wage differential between Edwards and Stewart. If the County were able to do so, the burden would shift to Edwards to show the proffered reason was pretextual or was manufactured after-the-fact to attempt to justify the pay disparity.

The Court of Appeals determined that Edwards had established a prima facie violation of the EPA by the County. As an initial matter, Edwards did not have to prove his and Stewart’s positions were identical, merely that the two positions were “substantially equal.” That inquiry involves an examination of the “primary duties of each job,” emphasizing “actual job content” over formal job titles or descriptions.

The Court declared that “a reasonable jury considering the duties actually performed by Edwards and Stewart could find the positions substantially equal.” Stewart had given testimony that hers and Edwards’ jobs “were of equal complexity and difficulty,” involved the same job duties and responsibilities, and required equal effort. One of Edwards’ supervisors testified that Edwards performed the work of a C52-level Manager rather than a C43 Specialist, and other County officials admitted they had requested salary increases for Edwards based upon his performance of duties exceeding his salary band.

The Court stated that the fact Edwards and Stewart managed slightly different numbers of programs and a slightly different number of employees in different pay bands, was not enough to overcome the similarities between the two positions. Unlike the District Court, the Court of Appeals did not find that the County had proffered a legitimate factor other than gender upon which to explain the pay disparity between Edwards and Stewart, and Edwards’ prima facie case remained intact. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the EPA claim and remanded the claim to the District Court for trial.

It is important that your company analyze its positions in light of the factors set forth in the Equal Pay Act and case law interpreting the Act, and that those which are equivalent positions offer equivalent pay ranges. As shown by the recent Eleventh Circuit decision, the courts will not tolerate pay disparities in violation of the Act, regardless which gender is being wronged.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently issued EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002, wherein it declared that an employer who considers an applicant’s or employee’s criminal history with respect to an employment decision (1) must demonstrate through local or regional data that African-American or Hispanic men are not arrested or convicted at disproportionately higher rates than other groups in the company’s geographic area, or (2) must show that the policy is job related for the position in question, consistent with business necessity, and the most narrowly tailored policy capable of the desired protection.

On January 29, 2013, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), which enforces affirmative action and non-discrimination laws with respect to entities doing business with the federal government, followed suit by issuing its Directive Number 306. The Directive includes reference to, and essentially tracks, EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002.

In addition, the Directive references and incorporates portions of the U. S. Department of Labor’s Training and Employment Guidance Letter (“TEGL”) No. 31-11, which was issued simultaneous to the release of EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002. TEGL 31-11 gives guidance concerning the posting or consideration of criminal history information with respect to job banks, job postings, and applications for employment and other employment decisions.

In light of the strong stances taken by the EEOC and the OFCCP with respect to consideration of an applicant’s or current employee’s criminal history, it might be tempting to forego such considerations altogether. However, such a strategy could ultimately lead to greater legal liability and other potential losses to your company than the potential liability from the EEOC, OFCCP, or aggrieved applicant or employee. The better approach in most cases would be to make such considerations, but to do so in a manner that can be defended under the scrutiny of the EEOC or OFCCP.

Please contact Watson Spence LLP for more information on drafting appropriate policies relating to criminal histories and employment, or for any other employment related issues.

In late February, Chris Cohilas obtained a $100,000 settlement for a Worth County client and his wife. The man was attacked by a group of pit bulls while visiting a Worth County property with his wife. The man was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he stayed overnight and received more than 40 staples. After receiving the demand package prepared by Chris Cohilas, the insurance company for the owner of the pit bulls immediately paid the entirety of its policy limits. This case was settled within 2 months of the attack.

Watson Spence Attorney Chris Cohilas shares some information with Albany CEO on laws in Georgia that have to do with non-compete agreements and trade secrets that have come about to protect investments that corporations make in employees.

View Full Article at AlbanyCEO.com

You own a business that provides residential cleaning services. You have a constant concern that homeowners will make claims of missing items after your employees have been in the homes, so you do not want employees with backgrounds of theft or burglary. In addition, you know that your employees will be in homes where children, elderly persons, and other vulnerable persons are present, so you do not want employees with violent or sex offender backgrounds. To be safe, you have adopted a policy of not hiring any applicant who has been arrested for or convicted of a crime of dishonesty, violence, or a sex offense, or who has a felony conviction for any crime.

Roberto, who is Hispanic, applies for a position with your company that would require his regular attendance in your customers' homes. He checks off on his application that he is a convicted felon, and in the explanation section admits he was convicted of drug trafficking 8 years earlier, for which he has served time in prison, and is now in a “halfway house” that allows him to leave the facility for employment purposes. He also admits having been arrested for shoplifting since being released to the halfway house one year ago, but that it was a misunderstanding that got resolved and no charges were filed. In compliance with your policy, you do not give further consideration to his employment.

Roberto files a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging you discriminated against him on the basis of his ethnicity when you failed to consider him for employment after he divulged his prior conviction and arrest. The EEOC notifies you of the filing of the charge and asks for your explanation and supporting documentation. You comply, knowing the EEOC will easily see the charge is unfounded.

Six months later you receive a notice from the EEOC stating that reasonable cause exists to believe your company has discriminated against Roberto on the basis of his ethnicity. The EEOC offers the opportunity to conciliate and resolve the matter, suggesting your company pay Roberto $60,000 and agree to hire him. In addition, your company will have to agree to discard its policy of not hiring anyone who has been convicted of a felony or arrested for the designated offenses, and will have to provide training to all of your employees relating to equal opportunity laws. Your alternative is a costly legal battle which, if you lose, not only will your company owe damages to Roberto, it will also have to pay his attorneys’ fees.

How could this happen? How is it that trying to protect homeowners and their families, and your company, could put you in such a “no-win” situation? First, you must understand that the EEOC exists for one primary purpose: to look for any action on the part of a business that could in any way be construed to discriminate, or result in discrimination, on the basis of age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, or disability. The EEOC does not exist to protect the right of businesses to make decisions that are believed to improve productivity, protect customers, or decrease potential liability. Instead, the EEOC is an unwieldy bureaucracy that enforces the laws with which it is charged regardless of the impact on business and the general U.S. citizenry.

Looking specifically at the example of Roberto, above, on what grounds would the EEOC conclude your company had discriminated on the basis of ethnicity? You certainly had no intent to discriminate. In fact, you did not give any consideration to Roberto’s ethnicity, and your company has applied the no-hire policy to all convicted felons, and all those who have been arrested for the designated offenses, regardless of race, ethnicity, or any other protected characteristic.

The problem, at least from the EEOC’s perspective, is that “[a]rrest and incarceration rates are particularly high for African-American and Hispanic men,” with current incarceration rates indicating that 1 in 6 Hispanic men and 1 in 3 African-American men will be incarcerated during their lifetime. Correspondingly, the exclusion from employment of certain of those who have been arrested, and all convicted felons, tends to have a higher adverse impact on Hispanic and African-Americans than on other racial and ethnic groups. As such, it runs afoul of the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e), one of the laws enforced by the EEOC.

What can you do to protect your company from liability under Title VII, while also attempting to avoid liability from lawsuits by customers who may be victimized by your employees who have criminal records? The EEOC offers two alternatives: (1) your company must demonstrate through local or regional data that African-American or Hispanic men are not arrested or convicted at disproportionately higher rates than other groups in your company’s geographic area; or (2) that the hiring policy is job related for the position in question, consistent with business necessity, and the most narrowly tailored policy capable of the desired protection.

The second alternative is fact intensive, and will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors to be considered are the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct, the time that has passed since the offense and the completion of any associated incarceration, and the nature of the job sought. For example, the offense of drug trafficking is not directly related to your concerns of theft of customer valuables or physical harm to the homes’ occupants, so it cannot (per the EEOC) serve as a disqualifying employment criteria.

Nor does the EEOC allow a company to refuse to hire any applicant on the basis of an arrest, even if the charged offense would be related to a legitimate business safety objective. While your company might legitimately deny employment to those whom it can be reasonably believed have engaged in crimes of deceit or dishonesty, it cannot do so simply based upon Roberto’s arrest for such an offense. An arrest, standing alone, is not sufficient proof that the accused has committed the charged offense. Indeed, Roberto has explained that it was a misunderstanding and that no charges were brought. Absent strong evidence that the crime did in fact occur, your company would be deemed to have discriminated against Roberto if it failed to hire him based upon the mere accusation of shoplifting.

Does this mean businesses should simply forego any criminal background checks? Absolutely not! In many cases, the failure to do so could lead to greater legal liability (not to mention loss of business) from customers than the potential liability from the EEOC or a non-hired applicant. An employer must properly balance the competing demands of business reality against laws that may mean well, but were designed by those who often do not understand the ramifications of real-life application and do not hold all parties’ interests equal.

Please contact Watson Spence LLP for more information on drafting appropriate policies relating to criminal histories and employment, or for any other employment related issues.

Rick Langley became “Of Counsel” this week to the local law firm of Watson Spence. Langley was previously with Langley & Lee, a law firm he co-founded in 1990. A native of Albany, Georgia, he attended Emory University and received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Georgia School of Law.

Langley has built a practice focused primarily on the healthcare industry and general business law, with an emphasis on litigation and business transactions. Additionally, Rick has served as President of the Dougherty Circuit Bar Association and was a founding member of the Health Law section of the State Bar of Georgia, where he served on the original board as its chairman. He was designated as a Georgia Super Lawyer for 2011 and 2012.

“His 39 years of legal experience, expert litigation skills and the synergy between our client lists, make this a win-win for all parties”, says Faison Middleton, managing partner of Watson Spence.

Joseph Dent represented an insurance company when a claim raised under a homeowner’s policy was denied. The claim arose in January of 2010, when a pipe burst and flooded a guesthouse on property which was used for recreational purposes by the family in Cuthbert, Georgia. The guesthouse was rented, but the tenant had no furniture or other personal items in the house. The questions were whether or not the guesthouse was vacant or unoccupied as those terms were defined in the policy and whether or not the owners took steps to reasonable maintain the heat by simply setting the thermostat in the guesthouse between 55 and 60 degrees.

Although the owner claimed the heat was working, Mr. Dent retained an expert witness who was going to testify the power bills indicated there was barely enough power being used during the time in question to light a 40 watt light bulb, much less run a heating unit. The claimant was claiming damages for the cost of repair of approximately $71,500.00 and was going to claim at least $7,000.00 in lost rent. In addition, the claimant alleged bad faith and was asking for the statutory penalty of 50% of the damages and attorney’s fees. The case settled for less than half of the claimed damages just prior to trial.

On June 18th, Evans Plowden, member of the General Counsel, American Peanut Shellers Association, spoke at the USA Peanut Congress 2012 General Sessions in Charleston, South Carolina. Evans is on the Farm Bill Panel.

Partner Joseph W. Dent shares some perspective he's gain over his years of service

Read the full article here.

Thanks to our friends at Northside Mortgage for sharing this hot update to the current mortgage rates.

Rate on 30-year mortgages falls to record low 3.87%

Evans Plowden and Bo Plowden attended the 2011 USA Peanut Congress on June 18-22 in Ashville, North Carolina at Grove Park Inn Resort and Spa. They made this PowerPoint presentation on new legislation imposed to improve food safety for consumers through proactive measures instead of the reactive nature of the past.

(Albany, Ga.) Kelley Boswell recently attended the Family Law Institute conference which took place from May 26 through May 28 at Amelia Island Plantation. Kelley is a member of the Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the Georgia Bar Association which is responsible for organizing the conference. Forty judges from across the state of Georgia attended to impart invaluable advice on the attending lawyers on how to better prepare and try their cases. There were also other speakers who focused on various subjects of family law including military divorce issues, international custody issues and family law issues for same sex couples and their children.

(Albany, Ga.) Watson Spence partner Bo Plowden attended the annual Keller and Heckman’s Practical Food Law program on March 21 through March 24, 2011 held in San Francisco, California. The program covered various areas of the recently passed Food Safety Modernization Act and other food safety legislation including food safety regulations, agency guidelines, recall policy, food safety concerns, labeling requirements, marketing regulations and many other areas.

With Watson Spence’s number of agriculture clients, it was essential for the practice to be aware of these new regulations and policies. Plowden says, “This was a great program for Watson Spence to attend. With all of our agriculture clients, it is critical that we stay up-to-date with all the policy changes and regulations that impact our clients.

(Albany, Ga.) Joe Dent, an attorney at Watson Spence, attended the ABA Midyear meeting held February 10 – 13, 2011 in Atlanta, GA. During the meeting, he participated as a panelist for a continuing legal education program, Finding your Own Voice – Ethical Dilemmas, Race and Gender Challenges and the Pitfalls of Practice. The program was presented by the Torts Trial and Insurance Practice Section.

The seminar was a series of video vignettes that presented ethical and professionalism issues which were discussed by the panel on which Dent served. Dent served with Ginger Busby, chairperson of the Tort Trials and Insurance Practice Section of the ABA, Judge Sara Doyle of the Georgia Court of Appeals, Jahnisa Tate with Alston and Bird, LLP in Atlanta, and Rahmah Abdulaleem with King and Spalding in Atlanta. The CLE was one of two premier CLE’s presented by TIPS during the ABA Midyear Meeting in Atlanta, attended by well over 100 attorneys.

(Albany, Ga.) Watson Spence, a leading local law firm, has hired a new firm administrator, Brenda Ramsey. With over 20 years of experience in an administrative position, Ramsey is ready to become a valued member of the Watson Spence team.

“Having worked in the medical field and other office settings, I am ready to take on this new challenge and move forward with Watson Spence,” says Ms. Ramsey.

She is married to Gene Ramsey and they have three children and seven grandchildren. She grew up near Hattiesburg, Miss., and has resided in Albany for the past 17 years. She attended Jones College and The University of Southern Mississippi with an emphasis in Business Administration and Bookkeeping.

http://www.albanyherald.com/home/headlines/100596974.htm

(Albany, Ga.) Flint Equipment Co., represented by Watson Spence, recently purchased Atlanta-based METRAC Inc., and its holdings in Atlanta, Braselton, Adairsville, Augusta, Macon, and Columbus to become the state's largest John Deere equipment dealer.

The purchase, according to Flint President and CEO Chris Cannon, could potentially increase Flint's market "one and a half to two times."

“We went through significant due diligence to make sure it was a good fit for our company. Our objective has always been to expand into contiguous markets, and this latest acquisition links our South Georgia, Florida and Alabama markets with our markets in the Carolinas.

"This transaction greatly benefits the Albany economy, making one of our local businessmen the largest John Deere dealer in the state of Georgia," said Bo Plowden of Watson Spence.

“We have strong relationships here in Albany,” Cannon said. “I grew up here, and I plan to stay here. This is where we are, and this is where we’re going to be.”

"As a native firm to Albany, Watson Spence is always happy to help our friends and neighbors, because when Albany grows, we all reap the benefits," responded Plowden.

ABOUT FLINT EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Flint Equipment Co., a subsidiary of Flint Equipment Holdings, Inc. has dealerships in Albany, Ga, Aynor, S.C.; Dothan, Ala.; Perry, Fla.; Simpsonville, S.C.; Tallahassee, Fla.; Troy, Ala.; and West Columbia, S.C. Flint Equipment Holdings Inc., known locally as FlintCo, is also the parent company for Albany Tractor Company branches and Flint Power Systems., which operates in six states in the Southeast and Caribbean. The company sells and services John Deere construction, forestry, industrial and agricultural equipment.

(Atlanta) Joseph W. Dent of Watson Spence LLP in Albany was elected to serve on the Board of Governors of the 41,000-member State Bar of Georgia and was installed June 19 during the organization’s annual meeting at Amelia Island, Fla.

Dent will serve in the Dougherty Judicial Circuit, Post 1 seat on the board. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia Law School and was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1991.

The Board of Governors is the 150-member policymaking authority of the State Bar, with representation from each of Georgia’s judicial circuits. The board holds regular meetings five times per year.

(Albany, Ga.) Cohilas joins Watson Spence as a senior associate in the litigation and trial practice group after seven years of service in Dougherty County has the chief assistant district attorney.

“We welcome the addition of Chris to our litigation and trial practice group. I have come to know Chris’ character, integrity and his passion for representing the interests of our State and the citizens of Dougherty County. He comes with well honed trial skills, judgment derived from years of practice, and a passion that will serve our clients well in the years ahead,” said Faison Middleton, managing partner of Watson Spence.

In his time with the District Attorney's office, Cohilas prosecuted every kind of crime imaginable. However, he is most widely known for his prosecution of crimes against women and children. For years Cohilas headed up a specialized unit dedicated to prosecuting pedophiles and rapists, achieving tremendous results for the citizens of Dougherty County.

Watson Spence is certain these experiences have prepared him for private practice and will make him an asset to the litigation team at the firm.

(Albany, Ga.) The Dougherty County District Attorney's Office would like to announce that after seven years of service, Chief Assistant District Attorney, Chris Cohilas, will be leaving the office to go into private practice with the Albany-based firm of Watson Spence LLP.

In his time with the District Attorney's office, Cohilas prosecuted every kind of crime imaginable.  However, he is most widely known for his prosecution of crimes against women and children.  For years Cohilas headed up a specialized unit dedicated to prosecuting pedophiles and rapists, achieving tremendous results for the citizens of Dougherty County.

District Attorney Greg Edwards says Cohilas has been a tremendous asset to the office and the community at large.  “Chris is a hard-working and talented attorney, who takes his job very seriously.  His hard work and commitment raised the office’s conviction rate on cases involving crimes against children to nearly 100%.  We will miss him and I wish him well as he embarks on his new career.  Our loss is certainly Watson Spence’s gain.”

Cohilas will join Watson Spence as a senior associate in the litigation and trial practice group. “We welcome the addition of Chris to our litigation and trial practice group. I have come to know Chris’ character, integrity and his passion for representing the interests of our State and the citizens of Dougherty County. He comes with well honed trial skills, judgment derived from years of practice, and a passion that will serve our clients well in the years ahead,” said Faison Middleton, Managing Partner of Watson Spence.

(Albany, GA) - Cindy Harrell, represented by Attorney Louis Hatcher with Watson Spence, has reached a settlement with Decatur County, Georgia in a lawsuit filed by her last year in the Albany Division of the United States Middle District of Georgia. The County’s insurer, Association County Commissioners of Georgia (“ACCG”), agreed to pay $600,000.00 to settle Ms. Harrell’s claims that she was the victim of repeated sexual harassment by her male co-workers at Decatur County Fire & Rescue. Prior to Ms. Harrell’s settlement, the most ACCG had ever paid to settle sexual harassment claims was $85,000.00. Ms. Harrell is the only female ever to work at Decatur County Fire & Rescue.

“Decatur County and ACCG understand we know how to try a case; they underestimated us once, and I doubt they want to do that again.” Hatcher was referring to a case he tried against Decatur County last April on behalf of three firefighters who were retaliated against when they supported the efforts of Michelle Lagace to try to become the first woman ever hired to work at Decatur County Fire & Rescue. Ms. Lagace was denied employment despite being imminently more qualified than the males chosen in her stead. Hatcher settled her case for $175,000.00.

Jimmy Bellflower, Steve Enfinger, and Guy Yates were Decatur County firefighters who supported Ms. Lagace in her EEOC charge of discrimination, and the men were the subject of unfounded disciplinary actions, including suspensions without pay. Although the men were later reimbursed the time off without pay, Decatur County refused to clear their names of the false accusations made against them. ACCG offered $30,000.00 to each plaintiff on the eve of trial. Although the plaintiffs did not have any lost wages or other special damages, the jury returned a verdict of $750,000.00, or $250,000.00 to each plaintiff. “ACCG informed us we had the fourth highest verdict ever against an ACCG insured, regardless of the nature of the case,” stated Hatcher. “The most important thing to us was the jury’s resounding declaration of wrongdoing on the part of Decatur County, and the unequivocal clearing of the men’s good names.”

(Albany, Ga.)- Gov. Sonny Perdue announced his new executive appointments last Thursday, March 18. Faison Middleton, partner in the law firm of Watson Spence, was one of the 14 new appointments. Middleton was appointed to the Board of Commissioners of the Georgia Student Finance Commission as the Second Congressional District Representative.

“I am honored by the appointment and look forward to serving the students of our State through the work of this commission,” said Middleton.

Faison received his Bachelor’s degree education from Emory University in 1992 and moved on to graduate cum laude in 1995 from Georgia State University College of Law, where he also served as Managing Editor of the law review. He then began his career in Atlanta, but left the partnership of McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP in late 2003 to move back to his hometown of Albany and join Watson Spence.

Middleton was previously active in the Atlanta Bar Association and has been active in the Dougherty Circuit Bar Association since his move to Albany. Middleton currently serves on the Board of Trustees of Leadership Georgia Foundation, Inc. and he is a graduate of Leadership Albany. He currently serves in numerous capacities locally, including serving since its inception as the President of the non-profit Lily Pad SANE Center, Inc., and as Treasurer of the Dougherty County Rotary Club. Middleton has served in many community organizations and on numerous boards and committees over the past six years, including the Board of Directors of the Albany Area Chamber Commerce, the Board of Trustees of the Albany Museum of Art, Board of Directors of First Tee of Albany, and Younger Executive Board of Regions Bank in Albany. He has served on committees to raise funds for Albany Community Hospice and the Flint Riverquarium. He and his wife, Kari, have two boys and attend St. Paul’s Episcopal Church.

(Albany, Ga.)- After being a part of the Watson Spence law practice for the past six years, Faison Middleton has been asked to serve as the practice’s managing partner. His years of dedication to the community and personal excellence in his case load involving civil trial and litigation practices stand out as qualities Watson Spence values in its managing partner’s character and work ethic.

Faison received his Bachelor’s degree education from Emory University in 1992 and moved on to graduate cum laude in 1995 from Georgia State University College of Law. He then began his career in Atlanta, but left the law firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge in late 2003 to move back to his hometown of Albany and join Watson Spence.

Middleton serves in many community organizations and on several boards and committees including the Board of Directors of the Albany Area Chamber Commerce, the Board of Trustees of the Albany Museum of Art, President of the non-profit organization Lily Pad Center, Inc., the Dougherty County Rotary Club, as well as many others attends St. Paul’s Episcopal church with his family.

I would also include a line that says something like: Thanks to our friends at Northside Mortgage for sharing this hot update to the current mortgage rates.

Rate on 30-year mortgages falls to record low 3.87%

Kelley O’Neill-Boswell, a partner of the law firm of Watson Spence LLP in Albany and an active member of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia, has recently been appointed to serve on the Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. The Executive Committee is comprised of 16 attorneys throughout the state of Georgia who specialize in family law litigation. Kelley O’Neill-Boswell focuses her practice in family law litigation, adoption and catastrophic injury litigation with over 18 years of experience.

The Executive Committee is involved in completing a multitude of tasks critical to the State Bar and Georgia citizens including managing and promoting the Family Law Section’s continuing legal education seminars, monitoring family law legislation, drafting legislation in the family law area, and providing guidance to family law attorneys throughout the state. The Committee also publishes a quarterly newsletter which includes articles on emerging areas of family law, interviews with judges, summaries of new appellate cases and legislative updates.
After graduating from the University of Georgia with her bachelor’s degree, O’Neill-Boswell earned her law degree from Mercer University and was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1991. She has also served as past president of the Dougherty Circuit Bar Association.