Mission-guided. Results-oriented.

Our results

The attorneys of Radford Scott LLP bring decades of combined experience to practicing employment law at the highest levels. We are among a very small group of Georgia employment lawyers with substantial experience trying cases to a jury – and we have a track record of winning. We have represented hundreds of clients among a wide range of professions, including farm workers, factory laborers, teachers, law enforcement officers, professors, managers, physicians, fellow attorneys, and executives at major corporations. We have deposed countless witnesses and have decades of experience litigating numerous motions and appeals in state and federal court.

We are proud to say that much of our work never makes it to the public eye. Whenever possible, we seek to resolve matters without resorting to litigation. We want our clients to be able to focus on moving forward in their careers, not fighting a long battle in court. We have recovered millions of dollars for our clients through negotiated settlements and severance agreements.

But sometimes, we are called to fight. We highlight some of these battles here:

Williams v. Clayton County Sheriff’s Office (2023)

In this case, James Radford conducted a jury trial in federal court under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on behalf of a Sheriff’s Service Clerk who was terminated from her job after requesting accommodations for a disability connected to her U.S. military service. The Clayton County Sheriff’s Office, under former Sheriff Victor Hill, strongly disputed that Ms. Williams’ disability was the reason for her termination, despite documentary evidence to the contrary. The Sheriff’s Office refused to settle, and we took the case to trial in federal court. At the close of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $202,811.96.

Ortiguerra v. Grand Isle Shipyard, LLC (2023) and Escobar v. National Maintenance Contractors, LLC (D. Or.)

Dan and his co-counsel currently represent immigrant workers in these two large cases involving, among other things, allegations of labor trafficking. The employers tried to move the cases from federal court to forced confidential arbitration. Dan and his team fought back against the forced arbitration, which would have been a proceeding cloaked in secrecy with the deck stacked against the workers. In Ortiguerra, the federal district court, in a published opinion, ruled that the workers’ trafficking and housing discrimination claims can proceed in federal court. In Escobar, the district court held that the claims must be arbitrated, but Dan and his team appealed to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which reversed, holding that the forced arbitration provision in the workers’ alleged contract was unconscionable. Escobar also is now moving forward in federal court.

Cox v. Fulton County School District (2023)

Justin Scott led a case against Fulton County School District alleging, in part, that his client was terminated in violation of federal and state law after she complained that students were being subjected to racial discrimination and abuse. Following years of litigation and numerous depositions, the Court denied the School District’s motion for summary judgment on our client’s claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Georgia Whistleblower Act. The case resolved before trial.

Githieya v. Global Tel*Link (2022)

Sometimes, we pursue matters outside of the employment arena when it aligns with our values and our expertise. James Radford was part of a team of attorneys who brought this class action lawsuit against the nation’s largest provider of Inmate Calling Services. The evidence developed through discovery showed that GTL was routinely deactivating customer accounts after a 90-day inactivity period and taking whatever money the customer had on their account. They made millions of dollars in profits in this way. The case was filed in 2015 by Radford and a colleague. After seven years of hard-fought litigation, the parties reached a settlement that provided over $67 million in relief to customers whose funds had been taken, in addition to requiring the company to change their business practices.

Tukes v. DeKalb County Sheriff (2022)

Justin Scott and his team brought claims for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act. His client was fired allegedly because she was unable to complete a series of physical exercises on a concrete surface due to a disability in her hand. They defeated the Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment on the discrimination and failure to accommodate claims, and the case settled before trial.

Culver et al v. ATM Response, Inc. et al (2021)

Justin Scott brought a case on behalf of ATM technicians who the lawsuit claimed were unlawfully denied overtime. His team reached a collective settlement of $265,000, resulting in a payment of 134% of the overtime they calculated as being owed to the technicians.

Ross v Better Outcomes for Our Kids, Inc. (2020)

This was a simple case of unpaid wages that should never have gone to trial. However, because of a defendant that refused to pay his employee, and refused to acknowledge wrongdoing, James Radford presented the case to a Fulton County jury and received a judgment for his client. The plaintiff was the former Chief Operations Officer of an upstart nonprofit organization. The non-profit struggled to achieve funding, and she did not receive a paycheck for some time, but she kept working, with her efforts focused on getting grants to fund their work. Once the organization received the grant funds, the CEO fired her and refused to pay her for over five months of work. We took the case to trial, and the jury ordered she be fully reimbursed for her work.

R.W. v. Board of Regents (2015)

This was a case brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) against Georgia State University (GSU) on behalf of a student who was removed from student housing after the Dean of Students office discovered he had a mental health diagnosis. The student had done nothing to indicate that he was a threat to himself or others. In fact, his diagnosis was discovered after he voluntarily sought counseling for depression from the university’s student clinic. This was another case where we tried time and time again to settle the case and simply allow our client to return to his studies and to student housing just like every other student. But the university forced us to trial. After a week-long jury trial, in federal court, the jury found in favor of our client. Because the university refused for so long to settle, the court also awarded us significant attorneys’ fees. The total judgment was just over $406,000.

David v. Signal Int’l, LLC (2015)

Dan Werner spearheaded a seven-year labor trafficking lawsuit against a Mississippi-based shipyard operator on behalf of hundreds of pipefitters and welders recruited from India to help repair Gulf Coast oil rigs damaged during hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The workers paid up to $25,000 for positions based on false promises of green cards. Once in the United States, the workers were forced to live in a fenced-in, guarded, and severely overcrowded compound and were threatened with deportation if they complained. After a six-week jury trial, the first group of five plaintiffs was awarded $14 million in damages. To recognize this groundbreaking win, Dan and his team were named Public Justice Foundation’s 2015 Trial Lawyers of the Year.

Abdulahi v. Wal Mart (2015)

This was a case brought against Wal-Mart by an Ethiopian assistant manager who was fired after complaining of racial harassment by his supervisor. James Radford developed evidence in discovery that the store manager had deleted video surveillance footage that would have shown whether Mr. Abdulahi had left a gate unlocked one evening—which he denied, and which the company said was the “real” reason he was terminated. Upon motion, a federal judge found Wal-Mart had destroyed the evidence, and sanctioned them by requiring them to pay attorneys’ fees and directing that the jury learn of the destroyed evidence. This matter was thankfully resolved prior to trial.

Karas v. New NGC (2014)

In this case, attorney James Radford obtained a judgment totaling $226,658 for back pay, front pay, emotional distress, and pre-judgment interest at trial. Our client was a human resources manager for a manufacturing plant. She testified that her supervisor told her she was not “tough enough” on the employees at her plant, and that he believed a man would be better suited for her position. The employer asserted that she was fired for unrelated reasons, but we proved to the jury that the real reason was sex discrimination.

Owens v. City of Greenville (2011)

As a young lawyer, James Radford argued this case to the Georgia Supreme Court, where he obtained a 9-0 ruling in his client’s favor, reversing an order in the court below that had dismissed the case. This was the case of a City Clerk and Chief of Police for a small city government, who were terminated by the Mayor without the approval of the City Council, which was in violation of the City’s charter and bylaws. The Supreme Court’s order sent the case back to the superior court, where it was settled before trial. James’ argument can be seen here:

Carrasca v. Pomeroy (2002)

Dan represented four members of a Mexican immigrant family arrested for swimming after hours at a state park lake. One of the plaintiffs wasn’t in the water. The other three left the water along with other swimmers, who were not Mexican, when the park rangers announced the swimming area was closed for the evening. The park rangers singled out the family, ridiculed and interrogated them, demanded that they present proof of immigration status, and detained them for several hours. Dan filed an equal protection civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the family. The federal district court ruled against the family, and Dan appealed to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit reversed the federal district court, calling it “a paradigmatic case of racial profiling.” Dan reached a very favorable settlement for the family, and the Third Circuit’s published, precedent-setting decision has been cited by courts in over 150 other civil rights cases.