Kentucky Employment Lawyer Blog

Lynn's Paradise Café was a Louisville, Kentucky icon. While people may have argued about the quality of the food, there was no denying the fact that the décor and atmosphere was completely unique, and that it helped the city's restaurant scene. It was featured in several food shows, including Throwdown with Bobby Flay, in which he challenged Lynn Winters to a breakfast food contest.

But what happened behind the scenes at Lynn's may never be known for sure, because the restaurant was suddenly closed on January 11, 2013. With a simple sign on the door and no notice to its employees, the quirky restaurant ceased operations after 22 years. While Lynn has said it was simply time for her to do something different, her ex-employees are saying they were subjected to harassment and forced to bring their own money to work.

While there has not been much additional information from reputable sources on the harassment claims, much has been written about the second issue. According to news reports, all of the servers were recently required to bring $100 with them every time they worked. This money was supposed to be used to "tip out" to the other wait staff, like those who bus the tables. Before the days of credit cards, servers received their tips right away out of the cash used to pay for the meal. Even with credit card payments, some restaurants still give tips to their servers at the end of each shift. However, Lynn's had apparently changed their policy so that the credit card tips were included in their paychecks. This most likely led to a shortage of tip money to share with the other wait staff at the end of a shift.

Continue reading "Louisville Kentucky Landmark Restaurant Closes Down Amid Unfair Pay Practices Claims" »

According to The People's Law Dictionary, collusion is "where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating." Allegedly this is what occurred recently in Louisville, Kentucky between a carhauling company, the Ford Louisville Assembly Plant, and the United Auto Workers (UAW). Earlier in 2012, Jack Cooper Transport, the company that had hauled new vehicles from the Ford plant since the early 1950s, was replaced by Voith Industrial Services. While hiring a new contractor to provide services is not illegal by any means, the way in which it occurred in this case appears to be questionable.

Teamsters 89, the union for the Jack Cooper Transport employees, claimed that 166 of their members were replaced by the new contract with other employees who were not with the Teamsters and were paid much less. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that the new carhauling company - Voith - joined forces with the UAW to keep the higher-paid Teamsters from obtaining jobs under the new contract. On December 21, 2012, Voith was ordered to hire 85 of the displaced workers at their original pay rate, pay them lost wages, and nullify the deal with the UAW while a new contract is drawn up.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was originally passed in 1935 and was called the Wagner Act. It not only allowed employees to unionize, but also protected employees who participated in a union from discrimination. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act was passed. It set some boundaries for unions and established some regulations. Today's statute - The Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) - is a combination of the NLRA and the Taft-Hartley Act, and is enforced by the Nation Labor Relations Board. Under the NLRA, employees can file a petition to unionize if 30 percent of employees support it. An election is then held, but actual unionization can be delayed by objections filed by the company or those wishing to unionize if either group thinks the election was unfair.

Continue reading "Kentucky Union Workers to Be Reinstated in Jobs after Collusion Ruling" »

How old is too old to work? According to one teacher from South Bend, Indiana, there is no set age. When she feels like she is doing a disservice to the children that she teaches, or herself, she will call it quits. But she refuses to let a school board president decide that for her. And at 80, she does not think her time has come.

The teacher in question filed an age discrimination complaint in the summer of 2012 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As evidence of the discrimination, she has two emails that the president of the school board sent requesting that she and another teacher be "gently escorted out of the classroom" so that two younger teachers could keep their positions rather than being let go. He specifically mentions "two teachers in our system who are 80 (or over) who by all accounts are no longer able to teach adequately."

The teacher says she is perfectly able to continue teaching and has her most recent teacher evaluation from 2010 as proof. Her March 2010 evaluation states that she is able to maintain control in the classroom and teaches effectively, and the evaluator recommends that she be re-employed for the next year.

Sometimes it does seem that younger employees are discriminated against when it comes to downsizing. But it is much more likely that a younger employee will find another position. In his email, the school board president says one of the younger teachers has already been offered a position with another school district and the other one is going to be offered a job elsewhere as well. It goes without saying that the 80-year-old teacher would have had a much more difficult time finding someone to hire her if she had been the one let go.

Continue reading "Indiana Teacher Claims Age Discrimination at Age 80" »

On August 31, 2012, a Kentucky high school coach that was fired in 2008 filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the school board. He had been employed by the school for 22 years as an assistant coach, and an additional 11 years as head coach of the boys' basketball team. Despite his long tenure, eight district championships, and a 204-117 record, the school terminated him. His lawsuit claims he was a victim of age and race discrimination.

Kentucky is an "at-will" employment state. This term means that an employer can fire an employee whenever he pleases. However, there are certain situations in which the employee is protected. If the employer and employee signed an employment contract stating the employee has to remain employed for a certain length of time, then an employer cannot terminate the employee before the contract is up without valid reason. Otherwise, this would be a breach of contract. Union employees also have some protection against being fired at the whim of them employers.

A third type of protection for employees comes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination Act. These acts pertain to employees that belong to groups of people who have a history of being discriminated against because of certain characteristics such as their gender, race, religion, ethnicity, and age. If an employer terminates or otherwise negatively treats an employee based on one of these characteristics, the employee has been discriminated against and has the right to seek compensation from the employer.

Some discrimination lawsuits ask for lost income with interest, benefits, and awards for emotional distress, all of which are known as compensatory damages. Others also ask for additional money in an attempt to punish the company for its wrongdoing. This type of damages is called punitive damages, and they are often awarded to convince the employer not to discriminate against future employees.

Continue reading "Kentucky Coach Claims Age and Race Discrimination in Wrongful Termination Lawsuit" »

An Ohio company that owns Panera Bread franchises in several states, including Kentucky, has settled a race discrimination lawsuit involving an ex-employee in Pennsylvania. The settlement will cost the company at least $76,000, possible more if additional employees come forth to say they experienced discrimination too.

The employment discrimination lawsuit claimed that the ex-employee, who is African-American, was only allowed to work in the kitchen at the restaurant, per the owner of the franchise. He was not allowed to serve customers, run the register or seek a management position because he was not to be seen by anyone. As a result, he was denied any chance of being promoted, even though he worked at the restaurant from November 2009 through August 2011. He finally left because of the alleged unfair treatment.

His lawsuit was not the first filed against the franchisee. A white manager who had been fired at the same restaurant supposedly over medical leave violations filed a lawsuit claiming he had been wrongfully terminated because he refused to stop having an African-American man run the cash register. According to the suit, a district manager said the franchisee would "(expletive) if he got a look at that." The employee that was being allowed to run the register is the one who filed the above lawsuit in January 2012.

The African-American employee will receive approximately $10,000 from the settlement. In addition to paying damages and attorneys' fees, the franchisee was also ordered by the judge to place a notice in local newspapers in every state he has a restaurant, notifying other employees of the settlement in case they were discriminated against as well. They will have the opportunity to join the lawsuit and receive 70 cents per hour for every hour they worked after their first year. This amount represents the extra money they could have earned if they had been given the chance to be promoted after their first year of employment. One attorney estimates that 200-300 current and former employees that were employed by the franchisee between January 2008 and January 2012 may be entitled to this compensation.

Continue reading "Franchisee of Restaurants in Kentucky Settles Race Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case where a teacher at a Lutheran School had filed a wrongful termination suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed the case, stating she could not file a workplace discrimination lawsuit because she was covered by the "ministerial exception." The Court of Appeals overturned the ruling based on the fact that the majority of her day was not spent in a ministerial capacity. However the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that she was indeed covered by the doctrine and that the school had the right to terminate her.

The ministerial exception doctrine gives religious institutions the freedom to hire individuals that they think are most qualified to minister to their members without worrying about discrimination charges. But who constitutes a "minister" at a church-affiliated school or hospital and exactly what employment law issues are covered is still unclear. Three recent Kentucky employment law cases involving ministerial exception had differing results.

The first two cases involved two professors at the Theological Seminary in Lexington, Kentucky. Both taught at the Protestant school, but neither were followers of the school's faith. In 2009, the seminary cut staff. Both men filed wrongful termination lawsuits, stating they were tenured professors and that they could only be terminated for failing to do their jobs or for misconduct, not for budgetary reasons. But both the district and appeals court ruled against the professors because of ministerial exception, stating the school has the right to decide who to terminate and that the government cannot intervene.

In the third case, a Louisville, Kentucky pastor was fired by the church he led from 2005 to 2010. In this case, the pastor was not claiming wrongful termination, but rather a breach of contract. A breach of contract occurs when and employer and employee agree to certain terms and sign a contract, the one party does not uphold their part of the agreement. In this case, the pastor claimed he was over $64,000 in salary and benefits by the church and he wants the church to pay him this amount. The Jefferson County Circuit Court refused to hear the suit based on the ministerial exception. In this case, the employee was an actual minister, so the court's decision makes sense in that respect.

Continue reading "Kentucky Employment Law Cases Put Ministerial Exception Doctrine to the Test" »

In 2009, an employee at the Fayette County Detention Center in Kentucky alleges that her supervisor sexually harassed her. Her lawsuit stated that he humiliated her in front of her co-workers and an inmate on separate occasions. She also claimed that he touched her breast. When she reported this behavior, she was supposedly a victim of retaliation as well. The lawsuit named the director of the detention center and the city. She was one of three women who filed lawsuits against the detention center alleging sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation.

This Kentucky sexual harassment case went to trial in March 2012. The jury handed down a split decision, which means they agreed with the plaintiff on some points and agreed with the defendants on others. The detention center director was excused from the case by the judge because he did not think the director played a role in the harassment. The jury found that the supervisor had indeed harassed the employee, but did not find any evidence that he actually touched her breast. Jurors also did not think there was enough evidence to prove her supervisor had retaliated against her after she complained about his behavior. They awarded the sexual harassment victim $60,000, most likely to cover any lost wages and to compensate her for any emotional or mental distress the alleged harassment may have caused her. Some of the damages may have been awarded simply to punish the city for allowing this to happen and to persuade city officials not to allow this to happen again at the detention center. Damages of this type are called "punitive damages." The employee that was allegedly harassed says she is thankful that someone listened to her.

As a further blow to the city and its bank account, the judge agreed that the city was responsible for the plaintiff's attorneys' fees that accrued during the preparation and attending of the trial. They totaled just over $200,000. If the city decides to appeal this decision and loses, it will likely be held responsible for those additional attorneys' fees as well.

Continue reading "Kentucky Sexual Harassment Case to Cost City over $250,000" »

The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (KCHR) was founded in 1960 to help stop discrimination of people based on their race or ethnicity. When the Kentucky Civil Rights Act was passed in 1966, KCHR took on the task of enforcing this law throughout the state. This commission is similar to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws that prohibit employers from discriminating against employees or potential employees based on age, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or disability. KCHR reviews complaints filed by employees to determine if they have a valid claim of discrimination, sexual harassment, or wrongful termination under state and federal employment laws.

Not all employers are governed by the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. An employer must have at least eight full-time workers for twenty or more weeks in a year for the act to apply. Federal anti-discrimination laws also may not apply to those businesses that have a small number of full-time employees. An employee must file a claim with KCHR within 180 days of the incident to have his or her claim considered.

Once a complaint is received by KCHR, an enforcement officer is assigned to the case to act as a neutral party between the employee and employer and investigate the claim. A letter is sent to the employer who has 20 days to respond with its side of the story. The officer will conduct an investigation, talking to witnesses and reviewing documentation. If he feels that discrimination most likely occurred, the case will be referred to a staff attorney. If he does not think discrimination occurred, he will recommend that the complaint be dismissed for "no probable cause." Both sides will be encouraged to conciliate the case throughout the investigation, which is similar to settling a dispute out of court. If a conciliation agreement cannot be reached, the complaint will be heard by the KCHR and a decision will be made by the commission.

Continue reading "Kentucky Commission on Human Rights Protects Kentucky Workers from Discrimination" »

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ensure that women were not discriminated against while pregnant. The act prohibits employers from refusing to hire a woman because she is pregnant; requires an employer to treat a pregnant woman the same as someone with a different temporary disability if she is unable to work temporarily; and requires an employer to provide the same type of health insurance at the same rate as other employees.

But there are some issues that the current act does not cover, which is why legislators introduced a new bill called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in May 2012. This act would essentially afford pregnant women the same protections and flexibility that those with disabilities are given. Under the current act, many employers are not accommodating to pregnant women because they don't have to be. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not cover pregnant women because they are not actually disabled, and some companies take advantage of the difference. Many cases illustrate this discrepancy. Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates (ERA) gives this example: "We see that male firefighters who throw out their backs are given desk jobs, but women who are pregnant don't get them...There is an ability to provide accommodations, but employers don't want to."

Some women don't even request an accommodation because they are afraid their boss will force them to take their paid time off guaranteed by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) too soon. If a woman takes off too soon, she may end up having to take unpaid time right before and after her delivery, something many families cannot afford. Others who have asked have been ignored or fired.

Continue reading "How the Proposed Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Might Affect Female Kentucky Workers" »

Known as the sponsor of the 2010 World Equestrian Games at the Kentucky Horse Park in Lexington, Alltech is an international company based in Nicholasville, Kentucky that produces animal feed, a beef product, coffee and alcoholic beverages. According to a lawsuit against the company that recently settled, it also allegedly produces a hostile work environment for female employees.

A woman who worked for Alltech for about four years filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company in May 2011. She had allegedly been harassed by her boss for the duration of her employment. The harassment ranged from sexual calls and emails to actually being locked in a conference room and inappropriately touched by him. She also claims that other employees were sexually harassed by her boss and others, stating "The culture and leadership at Alltech created an environment which fostered and condoned acts of sexual harassment."

The employee allegedly reported the situation to her boss's supervisor who told her not to worry about it because she was a strong woman and could take care of herself. In April 2011 she went to someone who worked outside the company - an auditor - and reported what had been happening. It was announced shortly thereafter that all emails over a year old would no longer be kept, and Alltech began an investigation into the sexual harassment allegations. Her boss resigned from the company, but was kept on for special projects at the beginning of May 2011.

Then on May 17, the company stated that any employee disputes would be handled through arbitration rather than through the courts. The employee was told this new policy would cover her complaints even though she had complained before the policy was put in place. The employee did not agree with this policy and she left the company and filed a lawsuit on May 20, 2011. Alltech tried to have the lawsuit dismissed based on their new arbitration policy, but the courts said the employee had not agreed to the policy and the case was allowed to proceed. To avoid having depositions taken of their executives and other employees, the company agreed to settle the lawsuit with the Kentucky worker for an undisclosed amount.

Continue reading "Company Settles Kentucky Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

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" »

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" »

Amazon is known worldwide for its competitive pricing and efficient shipping. Based in Seattle, Washington, the company has over 70 warehouses around the world and employs a large number of Kentucky workers in its Campbellsville site. On paper, a job with Amazon looks like a great deal. They offer a decent hourly wage, 401(k) with matching and health insurance for full-time employees.

But working for the internet giant also has a down side, as some Kentucky employees have discovered. While Amazon touts its warehouse safety records as being better than the average for warehouses and even department stores, some of their actual employees may disagree. They say the number of reported injuries is kept lower by Amazon in a couple different ways. Some employees are afraid to report incidents for fear of being written up and potentially losing their job. Others are told to attribute a certain injury to a pre-existing condition even though the current injury was work-related. At least some of the Amazon warehouses have their own medical personnel to treat workplace injuries so the employees are not seen by outside doctors, which might lead to a federal report.

Extreme temperatures are also an issue in the Amazon warehouses, as they are in other facilities. But Amazon seems hesitant to allow workers to take more breaks or to work at a slower pace, even when the temperature gets very high. An Amazon warehouse in Pennsylvania was under scrutiny when it was discovered that ambulances were parked outside the building, just waiting to take workers suffering from the heat to the hospital. One Kentucky employee who used to work as a safety official was concerned about the Campbellsville employees when temperatures reached 100 degrees, but he never talked to management about slowing production because he knew it wouldn't happen. To keep employees safe in the heat, he had people walking around offering them Gatorade. Amazon did install air-conditioning in its Lexington warehouse last year, and the rest of their Kentucky facilities should have air-conditioning this year.

Continue reading "Kentucky Workers Being Worked Too Hard in Warehouses" »