Download PDF
Brenton S. Bean

Brenton S. Bean

Partner

GA – Atlanta
T: 770.628.7116 | F: 770.628.7101

vCard | LinkedIn

Brent focuses his practice on defending employers in both the private and public sector in state and federal courts nationwide. He has particular experience representing clients in the healthcare, trucking and restaurant industries. Brent’s practice encompasses employer-related matters such as claims of employment practices liability insurance policies, employment discrimination and harassment. He also handles wage and hour claims, employee/independent contractor issues, disability and leave cases, as well as similarly related state law employment tort claims. Additionally, Brent concentrates his practice on disputes involving enforcement and defense of non-compete, non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements.

Brent has experience representing clients in cases and collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and in consumer law class actions including those under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Business Practices Act actions. In addition to practicing employment and labor law, he has specialized experience concerning the Surface Transportation Assistance Act in trucking industry claims. Brent also has experience defending  public sector employers such as cities, counties, school districts and sheriff’s offices for constitutional matters such as First Amendment retaliation and Whistleblower Protection Act claims.

Brent has significant appellate experience at both the state and federal levels, and has presented several oral arguments before the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. He has appeared before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and related federal and state agencies. Brent also has extensive experience in court-annexed and private mediation.

In additional to his legal practice, Brent is a frequent speaker and author on employment law-related subjects.

Practices

  • Campbell v. Gambro Healthcare, 478 F. 3d 1282, (10th Circuit 2007)
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of dialysis clinic employer alleged to have unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment; the Court held that Plaintiff’s FMLA leave did not insulate them from adverse employment action.
  • Bush v. Gambro Healthcare, Case No. 06-5315 (6th Circuit 2007)
    • Obtained summary judgment in favor of dialysis clinic employer alleged to have not granted Plaintiff a promotion on the basis of their race and retaliated against them for filing EEOC charges; the Court ruled that Plaintiff had provided insufficient evidence that their charges were related to alleged adverse employment action.
  • Cotriss v. City of Roswell, Case No. 1:16-cv-4589-WMR (N,D, Ga 2018)
    • Summary judgment granted on behalf of municipal police department alleged to have terminated Plaintiff’s employment for flying the Confederate flag at their house above their patrol car; the Court held under the Pickering Balancing Test that the police department’s interest in maintaining efficient operation and public confidence outweighed Plaintiff’s interest in flying the flag.
  • Swint v. City of Carrollton, Case No. 20-11965 (11th Circuit 2021)
    • Court affirmed summary judgment on behalf of municipal employer alleged to have unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment as a result of them reporting an alleged sexual assault; the Court held that Plaintiff lacked evidence of pretext to create a jury question.
  • Buford v. Life Storage, Case No. 20-10505 (11th Cir. 2021)
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a storage operator wherein Plaintiff alleged they were subjected to a race-hostile work environment, and was discriminated and retaliated against found by a change in schedule and pay; the Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment.
  • Gordon v. Spalding County, Case No. 20V-0540 (Spalding County Superior Court 2021)
    • Granted summary judgment on behalf of the county prison facility wherein Plaintiff alleged they were terminated because they raised issues of noncompliance with a law, rule or regulation; court held that Plaintiff failed to show causation between their prior complaints and the adverse action, and further failed to show pretext for retaliation.