April 5, 2012

Adding Veterans as Protected Class in Workplace Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects several groups of workers from discrimination in the workplace. According to the law, no one should be refused work, fired, demoted, paid less, or otherwise negatively treated because of their race, religion, sex, age, or disability. AMVETS, a group that supports American veterans, would like to add military personnel to this list.

Stewart Hickey, the executive director of AMVETS, thinks that veterans are discriminated against for a couple different reasons. Those currently serving in the military may be passed over for a job because the company is concerned that they will be called back to active duty, leaving the position to be filled in the interim. And employers may be hesitant to hire veterans who have already served because they are afraid the applicants suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or a traumatic brain injury.

There is legislation in place that makes it illegal for a company to refuse someone employment because he or she is a veteran. It is called the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and it was enacted in 1994. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel summarizes the act as "a federal law intended to ensure that persons who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, Reserves, National Guard or other "uniformed services:" (1) are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their service; (2) are promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their return from duty; and (3) are not discriminated against in employment based on past, present, or future military service."

Ironically, the federal government has been accused of disobeying this law by firing service members who have been gone on active duty, and rescinding job offers to those serving who did not return from active duty soon enough. In 2011, over 250 cases of the USERRA being violated were brought against the federal government.
So will adding veterans as a protected class under Title VII help the situation? Mr. Hickey can't say for sure, but his hope is that it will. He thinks that giving veterans the protected class status will at least make employers think extra hard before they turn down a vet for a new job or terminate one from an existing position. Even those who may not knowingly discriminate against veterans now may be more apt to hire a veteran if they become protected by workplace discrimination laws.

Continue reading "Adding Veterans as Protected Class in Workplace Discrimination" »

March 26, 2012

Can a Potential Employer Ask a Kentucky Job Applicant for Social Media Passwords?

1362248_businessman_with_the_notebook_3.jpgFacebook has become an international phenomenon with millions of users logged in around the globe. Some people have reconnected after years of no communication, and others have forged new relationships through shared friends and interests. As a result of all of this sharing of information, numerous privacy issues have arisen.

One of the latest issues is whether or not employers should have access to employees' Facebook accounts. While a potential employer may see it as an opportunity to get to know an applicant on a more personal level, it could also lead to a potentially illegal situation.

When applying for a job, there are numerous subjects that should not be addressed by an employer. Applicants should not be asked about their age, marital status, number of children, religious background, or ethnicity. Denying someone a position based on any of these factors would most likely constitute employment discrimination, which is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, these topics should not even be brought up by a potential employer.

When an individual uses Facebook, it is under the assumption that the information posted will be viewed by friends and family members, not employers. So the subjects listed above that should not be discussed at a job interview will most likely appear on a Facebook page. Even if this information is not explicitly listed on the person's profile page, it can normally be gleaned from reading posts and viewing photos.

Some prospective employers try to get around the sticky subject of asking for an applicant's user name and password. After the ACLU questioned the Maryland Department of Public Safety's practice of requiring user names and passwords from applicants, the agency changed its policy to requiring the applicant to log into social media sites during the interview. While this gets away from requesting passwords that people should not be asked to share, it still gives the agency access to information that may be covered under Title VII. Other companies have asked applicants to "friend" human resource managers, which also gives them access to the same information that could lead to discriminatory decision-making in the hiring process.

Continue reading "Can a Potential Employer Ask a Kentucky Job Applicant for Social Media Passwords?" »

March 23, 2012

Plumbers Union Settles Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Unions were created to protect the rights of American workers from those higher up who may not have their best interests in mind. Sometimes, however, the unions themselves can make bad decisions that end up negatively affecting a worker they are supposed to protect.

In 2008, Jon Stokes, who is African-American, was allegedly wrongfully terminated his job as shop steward at a construction site. He was immediately replaced with a white employee who had been on the job for only two months by the local plumber and pipefitters union. Stokes allegedly contacted union leaders regarding his termination being fueled by racism, but an investigation was never done. Because of this, the Division of Civil Rights filed a lawsuit.

An agent for the union said Stokes was terminated because people had complained he was too slow in filling their requests for materials, but the workers who had supposedly complained were never identified. Also, Stokes noted that he was never made aware of any issues before his termination.

Earlier this month, the union agreed to settle this matter with the Civil Rights Division. Several changes will be implemented because of this settlement. Union leaders will be required to attend training regarding civil rights law at the state and federal level. Policies that were previously lacking will be established, including how discrimination complaints should be reported and investigated. Anti-discrimination and harassment policies will be created and given to all union members.

While this settlement does not mean the union admitted any wrongdoing, the director of the Civil Rights Division was satisfied, saying "This is a fair resolution of some troubling allegations...It is vital that all employers strive to create a healthy workplace climate, and that every employee -- from the home office to the job site -- knows and understands the law."

Jon Stokes has filed a personal lawsuit against the union and it is still pending.

Continue reading "Plumbers Union Settles Racial Discrimination Lawsuit" »

March 18, 2012

Did Religious Discrimination Lead to Wrongful Termination at NASA?

When one hears the name NASA, rocket ships and space exploration come to mind, not religion. But one man is suing a California division of NASA for alleged religious discrimination. David Coppedge was a computer specialist that worked on a NASA mission exploring Saturn and its moons. Once a team lead on the project, he claims he was demoted and eventually terminated because of his religious beliefs. Mr. Coppedge believes in intelligent design, a theory stating that something must have driven evolution.

NASA claims the 15-year project was winding down at the time of his termination and that 264 other employees were also let go at the same time because of budget cuts. Mr. Coppedge claims that his speaking to his co-workers about intelligent design led to his termination. Two other items that may have contributed was his desire to have the holiday party called a "Christmas party" and his backing of a proposed measure to have marriage only pertain to heterosexual couples.

Religion is one of many types of discrimination that are illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), "Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs." The unfavorable treatment can be in found in several forms, including refusal to hire an applicant, a negative difference in pay or benefits, being passed over for promotions, or wrongful termination.

Under Title VII, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for employees' religious beliefs. This may include allowing certain types of dress or appearance required by an individual's religion or not requiring someone to attend functions that go against their beliefs. Unreasonable accommodations are those that would be extremely costly to the employer, would put other employees at risk for harm, or would impede the rights of others.

Continue reading "Did Religious Discrimination Lead to Wrongful Termination at NASA?" »

March 10, 2012

Paula Deen Sued for Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment

Paula Deen continues to be in the news, this time as a defendant in a lawsuit for sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment. The popular TV show host co-owns a restaurant with her brother, Bubba Hiers, in Savannah. Uncle Bubba's is the name of the restaurant where the alleged harassment took place.

Lisa Jackson, the general manager of Uncle Bubba's for five years, has filed a lawsuit claiming she was sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment while working at the restaurant. The sexual harassment allegedly occurred in several different ways. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Hiers frequently made sexual advances toward Ms. Jackson, watched pornography in their shared office, and said things that were very offensive. Ms. Jackson's claim also states that when Ms. Deen promoted her to general manager of the restaurant, she said she was "going to do something I've never done. I'm going to put a woman in a man's job."

Sexual harassment can take different forms. Sometimes it is sexual in nature, such as when Mr. Hiers allegedly watched pornography in their office and made sexual advances towards Ms. Jackson. It can also occur when derogatory remarks are made about a person's gender in general, which is what Ms. Deen supposedly did when she said she was going to give a man's job to a woman. Ms. Jackson also claims she was paid less than her male counterparts in the restaurant industry. These types of harassment can make an employee feel uncomfortable in the workplace and result in a hostile work environment. In many cases, if the sexual advances are turned down, or if the employee reports the sexual harassment, the harasser may retaliate by wrongfully terminating an employee. Ms. Jackson is not claiming wrongful termination because she voluntarily left the job based on the advice of a physician who said working at the restaurant was detrimental to her mental well-being.

Continue reading "Paula Deen Sued for Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment" »

March 3, 2012

Two Companies Settle Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Regarding Workers with Epilepsy

Epilepsy affects approximately two million Americans to varying degrees. It is a neurological condition that causes people to have seizures. Some can control their epilepsy with medication and avoid having seizures for years, while others continue to have seizures even while medicated. Special caution may need to be taken in certain situations by those who have frequent seizures, but no one should have to give up living or working because of this condition. Two companies recently settled lawsuits that addressed the need to make accommodations for potential and current employees with this particular disability.

A Missouri man applied at Tyson Foods, a meat processing company, for a maintenance position. The man had epilepsy that he had kept under control with medication for 12 years. During this period he had even been employed twice by Tyson. When he applied the third time however, he was denied a position without even being examined by a physician because of a new medical evaluation process put in place by Tyson. The applicant felt he had been discriminated against because of his disability and contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which agreed with him.

The EEOC filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Tyson on the man's behalf in May 2010. Tyson and the EEOC settled the lawsuit, with Tyson agreeing to pay the man $35,000 and promising to make some changes to their policies. Now, if an applicant at Tyson fails a medical assessment, he can have second and third assessments done at his own expense. Tyson will also provide training for those doing the assessments, will post notices regarding discrimination for its employees, and will report to the EEOC regarding its compliance.

Continue reading "Two Companies Settle Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Regarding Workers with Epilepsy" »

February 25, 2012

Age Discrimination Cases at Indiana Universities would be Fewer if Age Limit was Abolished

Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Worth (IPFW) is set to lose Michael Wartell as Chancellor due to a university retirement policy. The current policy requires high-level administrators to retire at the age of 65. However, many are questioning the usefulness of this type of policy.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was enacted in 1967 to protect workers over the age of forty from being discriminated against in decisions such as hiring, firing, and promotions. However, an exception was made for high level executives in both the public and private sectors that allowed employers to set mandatory retirement ages for those individuals at the top. Most U.S. colleges took advantage of this exception, setting mandatory retirement ages for both faculty members and high-level administrators. In 1994, schools were forbidden by federal law from making faculty members retire at a certain age. And over the years, most universities have done away with forced retirement of administrators as well. But many universities in Indiana are still enforcing this policy.

Last year, Indiana University faced an age discrimination lawsuit from a 64-year-old dean who was denied a three-year position. Even though a large majority of the faculty wanted her to be reappointed, the vice chancellor had to turn her down because she would have hit the mandatory retirement age of 65 during her term. The EEOC agreed with the dean and determined that the policy did not apply to her because she would not have received a large enough retirement benefit to qualify for the policy. The university settled with her and allowed her to stay on in a different position. But she remains disappointed in the university and its decision to retain the mandatory retirement requirement. "I can tell you that having no choice but to step down from an office wherein I was viewed as being successful by my colleagues and to which I was otherwise entitled to retain by virtue of an excellent review felt discounting and humiliating," she said.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Cases at Indiana Universities would be Fewer if Age Limit was Abolished" »

February 17, 2012

How the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act affects Kentucky Workers

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) is a federal law that was passed in 1988 and became effective in 1989. According to the Department of Labor, the act "protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs." While this quote gives a general description of what the act does, more information is needed to understand which employers are required to follow the WARN Act and which employees may benefit from its protection.

As the quote says, a company must employ at least 100 workers for the WARN Act to apply. All 100 workers must have been employed by the company for at least six months and average at least 20 work hours per week. For example, a company that employs 65 people year-round and hires another 40 seasonal workers for three months would not be governed by the WARN Act.

Even companies that have 100 qualifying employees may be exempt in certain circumstances. If a company is trying to find investors to help keep the company afloat, and giving a 60-day notice to its employees would hinder this activity, the company may not be required to give the notice. If Mother Nature causes the company to be shut down due to a disaster such as a tornado, hurricane, or flood, the notice is not required because the closure could not be anticipated. In a similar vein, if a company suddenly loses a main source of income because of a cancelled contract or other unforeseeable issue, a 60-day notice may not be possible. In these cases, the companies are still required to provide notice of the layoffs or closure as soon as possible, and they must provide a viable reason why the full 60-day notice could not be given.

The next part of the act to consider is which employees are covered. In general, anyone working for a company that fits the criteria above would be covered, including salaried and hourly employees, managers and supervisors. There are exceptions though. Anyone working for a branch of the government - federal, state, or local - is exempt. Those who have accepted a position knowing it is temporary and those who are hired as self-employed contractors do not qualify. Individuals who are involved in a labor dispute lock-out or who participate in a strike are also not entitled to the 60-day notice.

Continue reading "How the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act affects Kentucky Workers" »

February 8, 2012

Alleged Wage Law Violations and Discrimination at Restaurant Chain

1151761_waiter.jpgAnother restaurant chain is coming under fire for potential discrimination against a protected class of employees. Last year, Texas Roadhouse Restaurants, which is based in Louisville Kentucky, was sued for allegedly discriminating against employees and potential employees that were over the age of 40. The lawsuit claims that interviewers remarked about applicants' ages during interviews, and that older employees were not allowed to be hosts or work at the bar. Instead they were relegated to the back of the restaurant or the kitchen. Even the people pictured in the training materials were obviously individuals well under 40.

Darden Restaurants owns several popular chains throughout the United States, including LongHorn Steakhouse, Red Lobster, and Olive Garden. The company employs over 180,000 people. Employees of Capital Grille, another of Darden's chains, have filed a lawsuit claiming racial discrimination and violation of federal wage laws. Similar to the Texas Roadhouse suit, employees of a protected class - in this case minorities - claim they are being discriminated against by being given less desirable positions in the restaurants and are being denied the chance to advance in the company. Some experts think the plaintiffs will have a hard time proving this part of the case because the CEO of the company is African American and about 30 percent of the managers-in-training that have moved up from other roles are minorities.

The other issue in the case is the alleged violation of federal wage laws. Servers in restaurants are generally exempt from minimum wage laws, which means they can be paid less than minimum wage, because they earn tips that in theory make up the difference in pay. According to the lawsuit against Darden, the company currently requires servers to share a portion of their tips with hourly employees, whose hourly rates are higher than the servers because they have to be paid at least minimum wage. Restaurant employees also claim that they have to do prep work before their shifts begin and after they end and they are not being compensated for it.

Continue reading "Alleged Wage Law Violations and Discrimination at Restaurant Chain" »

February 1, 2012

Can You Claim Age Discrimination if Your Replacement is Older than You?

In 2003, Gloria Garcia's employment as a school secretary was terminated by the principal of a school in the Mission school district. She had been employed by the school for 17 years and was 48 years old. In a regular story about age discrimination, the next bit of information would be how much younger her replacement was. But this case is unusual in that Ms. Garcia's replacement was actually three years older.

The school district has tried twice to have the case thrown out, partly because they claim schools cannot be sued for discrimination, and partly because age appears to be a non-issue in the firing of Ms. Garcia since her replacement was older. The school appeals took so much time that Ms. Garcia will not get to personally hear the final verdict in the case because she passed away in 2010. But the decision will still be important to other employees who are over 40, including two women who were let go by the same school district.

Ms. Garcia's attorney contends that the school district can definitely be sued for discrimination because it is regulated by individuals elected in to office, it runs on money collected from taxpayers, and it provides a public service. She also explains how an age discrimination claim could be valid when the new employee is older than the one terminated. One scenario would be that the supervisor responsible for the firing did not hire the replacement. So in this case it is possible that the principal had an issue with Ms. Garcia's age and wrongfully terminated her, but it was left up to human resources to find a replacement, which they did. The individual just happened to be older. Another possibility brought up by one of the chief justices reviewing the case is that an attorney for the school district realized they could be in trouble for firing Ms. Garcia based on her age, so he recommended that she be replaced by an older person.

These questions could be answered through depositions and documents, if the school system would stop filing appeals so discovery could continue. Ms. Garcia's attorney admits that if it is proven that the same principal that fired Ms. Garcia also hired her older replacement, then she would most likely no longer have a case. But for now, the questions still remain.

Continue reading "Can You Claim Age Discrimination if Your Replacement is Older than You?" »

January 26, 2012

Wrongful Termination of Firefighter a Result of Gender Discrimination

1018822_firefighters.jpgBrittany McMahon wanted to be a firefighter, so she joined the Carlsbad fire department to complete her year-long probationary period in January, 2010. According to Ms. McMahon, she completed all tasks assigned to her and passed her physical tests, some of which she believes were made even harder for her than her male counterparts.

While living at the station on her work days, she was allegedly subjected to sexual harassment, such as being pulled toward a male firefighter by her belt loops and being offered assistance with showering. Online comments about female toiletries appearing in a unisex bathroom at a fire station added to the hostile work environment, Ms. McMahon claimed.

According to the lawsuit, around the end of her probationary period, Ms. McMahon was told she could either resign voluntarily or be terminated by the department, the latter of which would hurt her chances of finding a position elsewhere. Ms. McMahon felt she had no other choice than to resign. Her wrongful termination lawsuit, which is supposedly asking for about $2 million in damages, states that she was discriminated against because she was a woman trying to get into a fire department that has always been all men.

This case illustrates the different types of sexual harassment and gender discrimination that can occur. The other firefighters commenting about the station bathroom being filled with "tampons...hair accessories" and other female items is gender discrimination in which the complainant's entire gender is being insulted. A sexually charged hostile work environment was created when the male firefighters allegedly made comments about helping her in the shower and grabbed her by her pants. It does not appear that Ms. McMahon was terminated because she turned down the sexual advances of a supervisor or co-worker, which would be considered quid pro quo sexual harassment. Rather, the complaint states she was forced to leave her job simply because she was a woman.

Continue reading "Wrongful Termination of Firefighter a Result of Gender Discrimination" »

January 21, 2012

Louisville, Kentucky Employee Settles Whistleblower Suit

In an attempt to make the city of Louisville, Kentucky greener and save money, officials announced in September 2009 that Metro would implement more energy-efficient measures. Eric Garrett, a Public Works employee was involved in the effort, writing hundreds of work orders for updating or replacing equipment. Upon noticing that some of the recommended work was not being done, Mr. Garrett contacted Louisville's government ethics tip line and Councilman Hal Heiner in 2010. About two weeks later, he was suspended from work, initially for three days, then indefinitely, because a co-worker had supposedly filed a complaint against him.

Mr. Garrett felt that the suspension coming so soon after his reporting of alleged mismanagement by the department was more than coincidence. The attorney he hired agreed, and he filed a whistleblower retaliation suit on Mr. Garrett's behalf. The state of Kentucky has a whistleblower law that pertains to employees of the state and its "political subdivisions." A 2010 Kentucky Supreme Court case decided that city governments are "political subdivisions," so Mr. Garrett would be covered under this law. The law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees that report inappropriate behavior to the proper authorities. In this case, Metro Public Works allegedly retaliated against Mr. Garrett by suspending him supposedly for another reason no more than two weeks after he reported what he felt was mismanagement by them. The law also states that employees are not required to notify their employers that they intend to make a report. The law does not allow employees to make false accusations or divulge confidential corporate information. If this occurs, legal action can be taken by the employer.

The city of Louisville investigated the complaint against Mr. Garrett and determined there was not enough evidence to show he did anything wrong. Mr. Garrett was given back pay and benefits for the time he was suspended. He was also allowed to go back to work, but was told he would have to submit to a psychiatric evaluation to confirm he was fit to return. His attorney fought the evaluation requirement and won, stating his client had been suspended, not on medical leave. Mr. Garrett returned to work, but the whistleblower suit remained.

Continue reading "Louisville, Kentucky Employee Settles Whistleblower Suit" »

January 11, 2012

Kentucky Police Chief Pursuing Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

1066864_police_cruiser.jpgFormer Harrodsburg, Kentucky Police Chief, Rodney Harlow, was terminated by the city commission at the end of 2011. Mr. Harlow filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the city's mayor and commissioners. He also filed a motion for temporary injunction, which the judge denied earlier this week. The temporary injunction would have allowed Mr. Harlow to maintain his position as police chief during the litigation, but because of the judge's denial, he has been removed, pending the outcome of the suit.

Mr. Harlow's lawsuit is based largely on a Kentucky state law called the policeman's bill of rights. This law requires officers to be notified of complaints and entitles them to a hearing and an opportunity to appeal a termination related to a specific charge. Allegedly, complaints were made to a couple of the commissioners, but the information was never relayed to Mr. Harlow, so he was never given the opportunity to respond to them. Counsel for the city contends that Mr. Harlow was not covered by this law because he was a part-time employee and the law only applies to full-time employees. Mr. Harlow's attorney believes he is covered because the law pertains to any police department that receives assistance from the Kentucky Law Enforcement Foundation Program, which Harrodsburg does. Also, several employees have stated that Mr. Harlow worked 40-60 hours per week, which constitutes full-time hours.

Both compensatory and punitive damages have been requested in the lawsuit. Compensatory damages cover losses not associated with pay. In Mr. Harlow's case the compensatory damages are being sought for the negative effects this firing may have on his professional reputation. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendants and hopefully deter them from acting in the same manner in the future. Punitive damages can only be awarded if it is determined the defendants acted maliciously, which Mr. Harlow alleges both the mayor and the commissioners did in this case. He is also seeking lost wages and wishes to be reinstated to his position as police chief.

Continue reading "Kentucky Police Chief Pursuing Wrongful Termination Lawsuit" »

January 6, 2012

Cancer Patient Receives Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit against Walmart

1125238_forklift_1.jpgCharles Goods was hired by Walmart in Greenville Tennessee in 1997 to work at a warehouse as a forklift operator. After being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, he had surgery, during which some of the nerves in his right shoulder were severed. This resulted in permanent loss of strength and feeling in his right arm, making it difficult if not impossible to lift with that arm. Mr. Goods returned to work after the surgery and continued to successfully fulfill his job requirements until 2008. That year, a supervisor asked him to fill in during a co-worker's 20-minute break. The co-worker's job required lifting and Mr. Goods informed the supervisor that he could not comply.

At the supervisor's direction, he filed a request for reasonable accommodation, which informs the employer of the disability and is supposed to initiate a conversation between the employer and employee regarding the nature of the disability and what steps need to be taken to accommodate the employee. Mr. Goods included the fact that he had been successfully fulfilling his job requirements for the duration of his employment, including the three years after the surgery that caused his condition. According to the complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Walmart did not discuss anything with Mr. Goods, but rather placed him on leave for 90 days and was ultimately told to find another position that did not require manual lifting. Six months later, after filing a discrimination charge, he was terminated by Walmart.

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the amendments passed in 2008 in the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, it is unlawful to deny an employee reasonable accommodation and to retaliate against an employee for filing a discrimination lawsuit. According to the EEOC, Walmart failed to comply with both of these items, and filed a civil suit in 2010 on behalf of Mr. Goods.

In December 2011, Walmart settled with Mr. Goods. He was awarded $110,000 for wages lost in 2009 and 2010 and $165,000 in compensatory damages. Compensatory damages in this case most likely included additional loss of income and emotional distress. This type of damages is meant only to return the plaintiff to the place he was before the incident, not to punish the defendant. According the EECO, the following terms were also included in the settlement:

"In addition to the monetary relief, the 18-month consent decree settling the suit enjoins Wal-Mart's distribution center #6039 from further failing to provide reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, or following proper procedures for handling such requests per the ADA and ADAAA. In addition, the decree requires that Wal-Mart provide anti-disability discrimination training to its management staff; maintain records of any accommodation requests and furnish them to the EEOC; and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC's contact information. Wal-Mart has revised and amended its accommodation policy, which it distributed to all employees, to address accommodation issues."

Continue reading "Cancer Patient Receives Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit against Walmart" »

December 26, 2011

Whistle-blowing Case filed by Two Terminated Employees in Kentucky

Two women formerly employed by the city of Corydon in Kentucky, Gloria Mills and Jenna Kavanaugh, have filed a whistleblower suit against the city and its mayor, Larry Thurby. The suit alleges that they were wrongfully terminated for questioning some discrepancies they found in the city's accounting. When they brought the matter to Mayor Thurby's attention, he allegedly told them to keep quiet about what they had found. Neither of the women felt comfortable with keeping the information to themselves, so they notified Kentucky State Police who investigated the matter. Both women were terminated in July, supposedly for claiming they worked more hours than they did.

A state auditor's report in February showed that $81,000 of city money was missing. The Corydon city sewer clerk was terminated and indicted in September for theft of over $10,000. She faces up to five to ten years in prison if convicted. It would appear that Ms. Mills' and Ms. Kavanaugh's feelings that something illegal was occurring were accurate.

The Kentucky Whistleblower Act is labeled as KRS 61.102 and states "No employer shall subject to reprisal, or directly or indirectly use, or threaten to use, any official authority or influence, in any manner whatsoever, which tends to discourage, restrain, depress, dissuade, deter, prevent, interfere with, coerce, or discriminate against any employee who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges, or otherwise brings to the attention of...any...appropriate body or authority, any facts or information relative to an actual or suspected violation of any law, statute, executive order, administrative regulation, mandate, rule, or ordinance of the United States, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any of its political subdivisions, or any facts or information relative to actual or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. No employer shall require any employee to give notice prior to making such a report, disclosure, or divulgence."

What this means is that an employee should be able to report to an appropriate party anything that seems illegal or dangerous at the place of employment without the threat of being fired or somehow retaliated against by the employer. The act goes on to say that it does not allow employees to leave their place of employment during work without following the proper protocol and that employers still have the right to request information regarding what the employees have reported. Employees that knowingly report false or confidential information can face disciplinary action from their employer.

Continue reading "Whistle-blowing Case filed by Two Terminated Employees in Kentucky" »