Kentucky Employment Lawyer Blog

Equal pay for women has been an issue for many years. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act was enacted to ensure that men and women who did the same job at the same place of business and had the same experience would receive the same amount of pay. If a discrepancy in pay was found, the lower paying employee, presumably the woman, would receive an increase in pay, rather than the man's pay being reduced. The act allowed a woman to receive up to three years in back pay, or double that amount if it was discovered that she had been willfully discriminated against in her pay. The slogan for the act was "equal pay for equal work."

People disagree on whether or not the Equal Pay Act has been affective in ensuring women receive equal pay. Those who feel it has not been affective are promoting a new bill called the Paycheck Fairness Act. This new act adds on to the Equal Pay Act in the following ways:

Clarifies what reasons are acceptable for pay differences between men and women;

allows wages to be compared within certain geographical areas to determine fairness;

makes retaliating against an employee for investigating wage differences prohibited;

increases amount and type of damages that can be requested to both compensate the employee and penalize the employer;

includes small businesses in the law rather than requiring an employer to have a larger number of employees for the law to apply;

provides funds for training EEOC staff regarding pay disputes and for educating women on how to negotiate a salary;

requires federal contractors to provide employment data regarding hiring and salaries to help the Labor Department enforce the Equal Pay Act.

Proponents of the bill say all of these factors would add up to women receiving equal pay in the workplace because it would facilitate investigating the wage gap, protect those who raise the question of unequal pay, impose stiffer penalties for pay discrimination by employers and provide training to those who need it.

Continue reading "Would the Paycheck Fairness Act be good for Female Kentucky Workers?" »

Employees are discriminated against for many reasons, including their age, the color of their skin, whether they are male or female and their religious beliefs. Recently an Indiana court was asked to consider whether or not an employee was discriminated against because she asked for a protective order against an abusive ex-boyfriend. While the two may seem unrelated at first, there is a definite connection.

A female employee at Pitney Bowes requested a protective order from the court to keep her abusive ex-boyfriend from having any contact with her. When it was granted, she told her employer about it. Her employer put her on paid leave for about two weeks to determine how to handle the situation. When the employee called for an update on November 1, 2011, she was told she had been fired. Her supervisors did not deny that her firing was based on the protective order; rather they said that was the exact reason she was let go. They said they had to consider the safety of their other employees.

The fired employee's attorney said he tried to negotiate with the company to get her job back, but it wasn't until a discrimination lawsuit was filed that Pitney-Bowes offered to find the Indiana employee a position in a different location. The agreement has not yet been finalized. The lawsuit claimed gender discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the majority of people who seek protective orders are women; so a company that discriminates against employees that request protective orders is essentially discriminating against women.

Women's advocates fear that this potential discrimination will keep abused women from filing protective orders. They may feel they have to stay in an abusive relationship to keep from losing their jobs. Fifteen states currently have laws that prevent employees from being fired for seeking legal protection from an abuser, but Indiana is not one of them. The state does have a law that compensates women with unemployment benefits if they have to quit their jobs because of an abusive or violent domestic situation. Unfortunately, the state of Kentucky does not have either of the above laws to help women who were or are in an abusive relationship and want to get out. Hopefully that will change in the near future.

Continue reading "Can Protective Orders Lead to Indiana Job Discrimination and Wrongful Termination?" »

Prisons are often riddled with problems. It is a tough place to work. Most people would not even consider working for the prison system for a career. But many of those that do work hard for every penny they earn. Some Kentucky prison employees feel they are not being adequately compensated for their work.

The Marion Adjustment Center is a private prison in Kentucky. It is run by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Six current and previous employees have filed an employment lawsuit claiming they were not paid for extra hours they had to work. Oftentimes they were required to stay past the end of their shifts to wait for their replacements or to travel between prisons, both on their personal time. They were also expected to attend training sessions on their days off.

Why would an employer think asking employees to work more than the hours they were paid for would be okay? The employees in question are, or were, shift supervisors. According to the company, employees that hold this position are exempt. "Exempt" means they are not entitled to overtime. Businesses can claim that certain employees are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA provides a list of categories of employees who could be exempt from receiving overtime pay as well as specific types of employees. Those who could be exempt range from babysitters to farm workers to executives. According to the Department of Labor's (DOL) website regarding the FLSA:

"Exemptions are narrowly construed against the employer asserting them. Consequently, employers and employees should always closely check the exact terms and conditions of an exemption in light of the employee's actual duties before assuming that the exemption might apply to the employee. The ultimate burden of supporting the actual application of an exemption rests on the employer."

Continue reading "Kentucky Workers File Employment Lawsuit against Prison Company" »

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has brought to light a legal issue regarding employees of religious institutions that was fairly unknown. "Ministerial exception" is a doctrine that allows religious institutions to make employment decisions without the interference of the federal government. Most employers are governed in part by several federal laws that prevent discrimination and wrongful termination based on age, race, religion, place of origin, and gender. However, those employees who work for church-affiliated organizations may find these laws do not protect them.

In some situations, ministerial exception appears to make sense. A Catholic church should not be forced to hire a Jewish rabbi to perform their services because they are not allowed to discriminate against anyone based on religion. But when it comes to employees such as administrators, school teachers, and hospital workers, when the exception should apply is unclear. In the case heard by the Supreme Court, a school teacher was terminated and she filed a discrimination lawsuit claiming she has been terminated because she had narcolepsy, a sleeping disorder. Officials at the parochial school claimed the lawsuit was invalid because she worked for a religious institution and their decision was covered by the ministerial exception. The Supreme Court agreed.

Two cases that were filed recently illustrate the need for greater definition as to whom the exception applies and to whom it does not apply. In an Indiana discrimination lawsuit, a woman claims she was fired from her teaching position at a Catholic school because she and her husband were attempting to have another child through in vitro fertilization. She had been undergoing the treatments for about a year when the church school didn't renew her 2010 teaching contract. She was told she was terminated because she had gone against the beliefs of the Catholic Church when she started the in vitro treatments and that "[t]he Diocese has clear policies requiring that teachers in its schools must, as a condition of employment, have a knowledge of and respect for the Catholic faith, and abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church as those tenets apply to that person."

Continue reading "Women File Ohio and Indiana Discrimination Lawsuits after Being Fired for Wanting to Have Children" »

The KFC Yum! Center was opened in Louisville, Kentucky with much fanfare in October 2010. Ted Nicholson, general manager of the arena, took part in the excitement and was set to manage the arena through numerous upcoming venues, including the NCAA Tournament this year. Then in February 2012, Harold Workman, president of the Kentucky State Fair Board (KSFB), fired him, much to the surprise of the rest of the fair board and Mr. Nicholson himself. The KSFB chairman tried to get him reinstated to his position, but was unsuccessful. The University of Louisville then hired him to oversee the NCAA Tournament, which appeared to be successful.

With the tournament over, Mr. Nicholson has focused his energy on seeking justice for his alleged wrongful termination. On April 27, 2012, he filed a whistleblower lawsuit against KSFB. A whistleblower is someone who reports a company for a variety of reasons, including illegal activities, mismanagement of funds, corruption, and health or safety violations. This information may be divulged to someone else within the company, an outside person, or law enforcement. If the company retaliates against the whistleblower in any way, including termination, the whistleblower can file a lawsuit. Whistleblowers in Kentucky are protected by federal laws as well as the Kentucky Whistleblower Act. This state act protects employees who divulge information to the proper authorities. It does not allow employees to share confidential or incorrect information, and it gives employers the right to find out what information the employee has shared. Employees who share incorrect information can face disciplinary action.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Nicholson believes he was retaliated against after telling an outside consultant about some of the issues the arena was having and attributing them to Mr. Workman. The consultant had been hired to review the operation of the arena and Nicholson states his answers to the firm's questions were "honest and sincere." He claims that numerous unqualified employees were hired because they were acquainted with the fair board president and events that were not profitable continued to be booked. When the negative report came back from the consultant, Nicholson claims he was reprimanded by Mr. Workman and ultimately terminated because of it in February. The board president has announced his plan to retire at the end of the year.

Continue reading "Manager of Kentucky KFC Yum! Center Files Whistleblower Lawsuit" »