Angie C. Davis, a shareholder in the Firm's Memphis office, partners with clients on all aspects of employment issues. Her practice includes high level investigations of claims involving discrimination and/or harassment under Title VII, the Tennessee Human Rights Act or the ADEA and the drafting of clients' responses to subpoenas, attorney demand letters, and state and federal agencies such as the EEOC or the NLRB. She provides daily counsel to executives, human resources managers and various other clients regarding employment issues such as leaves (under the ADA, FMLA, Workers' Compensation, vacation or client PTO policies); terminations; reasonable accommodations under the ADA; wage and hour issues under the FLSA; reorganizations; reductions in force; policies and procedures (including drafting/revising of handbooks); non-compete agreements and severance agreements. Ms. Davis regularly works with clients to develop employee handbooks and policy and procedure manuals with a special emphasis in the drafting of these materials and the training of employees in the areas of sexual harassment and workplace diversity.
Her employment litigation practice consists of representing clients in cases filed in both federal and state courts and in matters pending before the EEOC and the NLRB. Ms. Davis has received numerous no cause findings from the EEOC for employers. She has substantial experience handling employment issues in the following industries: restaurant food manufacturing, nursing home, chemical, steel, distribution, transportation logistics, non-profit organizations, and education.
In addition to her experience in employment law, Ms. Davis has also practiced in the area of tort litigation concentrating in medical malpractice defense, premises liability and insurance defense. Representative matters include premises liability work for a large supermarket chain and medical malpractice defense for physicians insured by large malpractice insurance carriers.
Recent Representative Matters — United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendant in a case involving race discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and mixed motive issues.