Kentucky Employment Lawyer Blog

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" »

Charles 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" »

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" »

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was enacted in 1993 to allow employees to take time off work without pay for certain family or medical reasons. In order to qualify for FMLA, an employee has to have worked for the employer for 12 months over the previous seven years, and worked 1250 hours during the last 12 months. Employers that have fewer than 50 employees who have worked 20 weeks during the last year are not required to provide leave under this act. According to the Department of Labor website, qualified employees are eligible for 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the following reasons:

• for the birth and care of a newborn child of the employee;
• for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
• to care for a spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition;
• to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition; or
• for qualifying exigencies arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is on active duty or call to active duty status as a member of the National Guard or Reserves in support of a contingency operation.

An additional 12 weeks of leave are available to certain relatives of injured service members.

FMLA pertains to several different types of situations, as shown by recent cases in the news. In Southern California, an executive chef for a country club went into septic shock after surgery and was in a medically induced coma for two months. While he was ill, the country club replaced him with another chef. Under FMLA, the country club was required to keep his job for him until he returned. Late last week, the U.S. District Court agreed with Mr. Caupain, the chef, and granted summary judgment in his favor. This means the case will move forward to the damages phase without a trial to determine if Mr. Caupin was wrongfully terminated under FMLA. The trial to determine damages is scheduled for January 2012.

Continue reading "Family Medical Leave Act" »

Fitness club employees spend their days looking at and trying to improve human bodies. Clothing made for fitness and to accentuate the body is worn. In this type of workplace, sexual harassment is bound to occur.

Earlier this month, Jonathan Prince, a personal trainer at 24 Hour Fitness in Sherman Oaks, California, filed a lawsuit against his female manager. The suit alleges that the manager hit on Mr. Prince by asking him out and sending him suggestive text messages. When Mr. Prince asked her to stop she gave him negative reviews in retaliation, which hurt his chances for receiving a promotion or bonus. Mr. Prince is seeking over $50,000 in damages. This case highlights the fact that the victim of sexual harassment is not always female.

In 2004, the same club, 24 Hour Fitness, was ordered to pay $2.4 million to Cynthia Malek, a former employee who was fired because she complained that male co-workers were sexually harassing her. The company attempted to demote her from a management position to a sales position. Ms. Malek refused to accept the demotion and was fired. According to the arbitrator's comments, several of the criticisms that led to the attempted demotion of Ms. Malek came from the men she claimed had sexually harassed her. Even after damages were awarded to her, Ms. Malek continued to fight to have the ruling made public. She felt that the 24 Hour Fitness company as a whole tolerated sexual harassment and she wanted others to be aware of her situation. A year later, the ruling was publicized.

Not all cases of sexual harassment in fitness clubs are filed by employees that work directly with patrons. In August, 2011, Allstar Fitness settled a sexual harassment and http://www.millerfalknerlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1400888.html by agreeing to pay $150,000 to a janitorial worker who was allegedly sexually assaulted numerous times by her supervisor. The supervisor told her to keep quiet about it or she would lose her job. When she asked him to stop, he fired her the next day. The claim filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on her behalf claims that the club's upper management never investigated her allegations. The settlement also requires the company to establish a complaint procedure and policies regarding sexual harassment and to provide employee training. Michael Baldonado, District Director of EEOC stated, "No one should be forced to choose between personal dignity and the paycheck that feeds your family."

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment in Fitness Clubs" »

In October 2009, Dawn Simpson filed a lawsuit against the city of Louisville after allegedly being sexually harassed and retaliated against by her former employer at Louisville Metro Animal Services. According to the suit, the former director of Metro Animal Services began sexually harassing Ms. Simpson shortly after she began working there in 2007. After Ms. Simpson complained to the second person in command, the suit alleges she was retaliated against by not being allowed to hire employees, make decisions on animal euthanasia, or utilize shelter volunteer coordinators. Her suit with the city of Louisville was settled this year for $287,000. Both men involved in the suit have resigned from their positions.

Ms. Simpson's claim stemmed from her employer touching her stomach and making inappropriate comments about her physical appearance. Other examples of sexual harassment that create a hostile work environment include crude jokes or sexually explicit photos or pictures being visible in the workplace. Another type of sexual harassment is quid pro quo sexual harassment. In this type of harassment, an employee must provide sexual favors to maintain or improve his or her position, benefits, or salary. Employees often believe that if they perform the sexual favors they cannot file a claim, but this is not the case. If the employee felt they had to do it, a sexual harassment lawsuit can be filed.

In a new workplace lawsuit in Lexington, Kentucky, Cynthia Elliot has filed a claim against the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund of Kentucky (AppalReD) alleging she was discriminated against because of her race and gender. Ms. Elliott, who is black, also felt she was retaliated against for firing white employees when she was terminated in January. The AppalReD board states she was fired after an audit showed the agency had spent $1 million more than its budget over four years and because funds were allegedly missing.

Continue reading "One Kentucky Employment Lawsuit Ends and Another Begins" »

They may be, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. In September, 2002, Miriam Regalado filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against North American Stainless that alleged sex discrimination by her superiors. At the time the complaint was filed, Ms. Regalado's fiancé, Eric Thompson, was also employed by North American Stainless. About three weeks after North American Stainless received notice of Ms. Regalado's complaint from the EEOC, Mr. Thompson was fired.

Subsequently Mr. Thompson filed his own complaint with the EEOC alleging the company was retaliating against him for Ms. Regalado's claim, which he asserted is illegal under Title VII of the Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Title VII states that an employer cannot retaliate against an employee who has filed a discrimination claim by terminating his employment. Mr. Thompson's complaint was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on the grounds that he was not protected by Title VII since he did not file the initial discrimination claim. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the lower courts' decision. The court used a "zone of interest" test to determine if Mr. Thompson had a right to file a claim under Title VII. Per the syllabus of the opinion of the Supreme Court:
"Applying that test here, Thompson falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII. He was an employee of NAS, and Title VII's purpose is to protect employees from their employers' unlawful actions. Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which NAS punished Regalado. Thus, Thompson is a person aggrieved with standing to sue under Title VII."

Continue reading "Are Friends and Relatives Protected by Anti-Discrimination Laws in the Workplace?" »

The separation of church and state has always been a tough subject. While the topic does not relate to the majority of us in regards to employment issues, it can affect anyone employed by a church, religious school, or other religious institution.

"Ministerial exception" is a doctrine that was put in place to allow religious institutions the ability to hire individuals that they feel are most qualified to minister to their followers without government intervention. For example, a Lutheran church cannot be sued for discrimination for failing to hire a rabbi for a religious leadership position within the church. However, the subject becomes more unclear when it is applied to other positions within a religious institution.

In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a fourth-grade teacher at the religious school was terminated after several months of not being able to work due to undiagnosed narcolepsy. After she was diagnosed, her doctors cleared her to return to work with the appropriate medication. The school was concerned about her ability to perform her teaching duties and asked her to leave the school voluntarily and waive her disability. She refused, threatening legal action if she was not reinstated, and she was fired.

Ms. Perich, the dismissed teacher, contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and filed a wrongful termination suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed the case, stating Ms. Perich was included under the ministerial exception because she taught at a religious school. Ms. Perich and the EEOC appealed, stating that only 45 minutes of her 7-hour days were spent in religious activity; the rest of her work was secular. They won the appeal, and the case is headed to the Supreme Court.

Continue reading "Workplace Rights of Religious Institution Employees to be Determined by Supreme Court" »

The City of Danville, in central Kentucky settled a lawsuit with its former chief financial officer, reports the Lexington Herald Leader.

The plaintiff, Spencer Rodgers, alleged that he was demoted after an investigation of mishandling of city finances in 2007. The lawsuit was filed in Boyle Circuit Court in October 2008.

The City has agreed to pay Rodgers a total of $125,000, with $75,000 coming from city funds and an additional $50,000 from the city's insurer. In addition, Rodgers will continue as IT technician for six weeks and will receive letters of reference.

If you have also been demoted or fired because you participated in an investigation, you should contact an Kentucky attorney to find out if you have a case.

Kentucky Discrimination Attorneys are anxious to hear the US Supreme Court decision in the case Thompson v. North American Stainless.The Court agreed on June 29, 2010, to hear the case. While it will not be argued until the fall, the case will take a critical look at whether employers can legally retaliate against a complainant's family members when an employee reports illegal discrimination or harassment in the workplace.

In the Thompson case, both Mr. Thompson and his finance, Miriam Regalado, worked for North American Stainless. Mr. Thompson had worked for the company for over six years, and it was known throughout the company that they were dating. Ms. Regalado complained of workplace gender discrimination to the EEOC. A few weeks later, Mr. Thompson was terminated.

Continue reading "Kentucky Case to Be Heard by US Supreme Court" »

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against Harrison County Indiana Sheriff ,G. Michael Deatrick, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found probable cause that Sheriff Deatrick sexually harassed, created a hostile work environment and retaliated against two female employees of Harrison County.

Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act an employer is prohibited from discriminating against an employee on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin and age. Also an employer is prohibited from retaliating against an employee for availing themselves of the protections afforded by Title VII.

The two female employees, Deanna Decker and Melissa Graham, sued Sheriff Deatrick and Harrison County, Indiana in 2008 for a violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The two female employees are represented by Charles W. Miller of Miller & Falkner.

To see more information regarding the Department of Justice lawsuit please visit:

Wlky.com: Judge Rules DOJ Lawsuit Against Sheriff May Proceed

The Corydon Democrat: Feds File Suit Against Deatrick, County

The Chicago Tribune: Feds say Harrison Co. sheriff harassed 2 workers