Kentucky Employment Lawyer Blog

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?" »

Brittany 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" »

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" »

On November 16, 2011 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) approved proposed changes to the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects employees over the age of 40. The proposed changes will now be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House. If the OMB approves the changes, they will be returned to the EEOC for final approval. The proposed changes are in response to recent Supreme Court cases regarding disparate impact claims and "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) defenses.

Disparate impact occurs when an employer's actions affect a protected class inadvertently. These claims frequently arise from staff-reduction cuts or the implementation of new compensation programs. While the discrimination is not intentional, a protected group is negatively affected by the decision. In response to disparate impact claims related to age, employers often use the "reasonable factors other than age" defense, stating the changes made were not based on age, but were made for other reasons. In this proposed amendment, the EEOC gives guidelines regarding whether or not a factor is reasonable and if the factor was based on something other than age.

To test reasonableness, the EEOC lists the following factors:

• whether the employment practice and the manner of its implementation are common business practices;
• the extent to which the factor is related to the employer's stated business goal;
• the extent to which the employer took steps to define the factor accurately and to apply the factor fairly and accurately (e.g., training, guidance, instruction of managers);
• the extent to which the employer took steps to assess the adverse impact of its employment practice on older workers;
• the severity of the harm to individuals within the protected age group, in terms of both the degree of injury and the numbers of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the employer took preventive or corrective steps to minimize the severity of the harm, in light of the burden of undertaking such steps; and
• whether other options were available and the reasons the employer selected the option it did.

• the extent to which the employer gave supervisors unchecked discretion to assess employees subjectively;
• the extent to which supervisors were asked to evaluate employees based on factors known to be subject to age-based stereotypes; and
• the extent to which supervisors were given guidance or training about how to apply the factors and avoid discrimination.

Continue reading "Proposed Changes to Age Discrimination Law Approved by EEOC" »

In previous articles, various forms of employment discrimination that are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been discussed. One that has not been covered is disability discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was also enacted to protect employees and potential employees from discrimination based on a physical or mental disability. Employers with more than 15 employees are required to give potential employees with disabilities the same opportunity to obtain a position as those without a disability. Once employed with a company, disabled employees should enjoy the same benefits, such as equal pay, opportunities for advancement, and job selection. They should feel welcome at work and have certain accommodations made to enable them to do the job if necessary.

These laws do not mean that a disabled individual has to be considered for every type of position. If a disability would put the employee, co-workers or the general public in harm's way, he or she is not entitled to the same consideration. The individual must also have the qualifications, experience and skills necessary for the job.

In a Kentucky disability discrimination case last year, an employee at a Waffle House in Mount Vernon was wrongfully terminated after she informed her employer she had Hepatitis C. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against the owner of the Waffle House and reached a settlement out of court. The settlement included back pay for the terminated employee and required the employer to provide anti-discrimination training and to refrain from future discrimination or retaliation.

More recent cases involve individuals who were discriminated against because of their diabetes. In August of this year, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pamela Manning, an employee of Kohl's , who had diabetes. Ms. Manning's set work schedule suddenly changed to an irregular one. She began suffering from complications from her diabetes because of the irregular schedule and asked to be returned to a set schedule. Kohl's refused, even after seeing a note from Ms. Manning's doctor. Because of her health, she was forced to quit. According to the EEOC press release, the suit "seeks monetary relief for Manning, the adoption of strong policies and procedures to remedy and prevent disability discrimination by Kohl's, training on discrimination for its managers and employees, and more." An 18-year employee of Walgreens who had diabetes was fired in California because she ate a bag of chips when she felt her sugar levels dropping. She paid for the chips as soon as she was able, but was still terminated. According to the ADA, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities, and allowing an employee to eat a bag chips to avoid a medical emergency would seem like a "reasonable accommodation."

Continue reading "Disability Discrimination in the Workplace Leads to Termination, Hostile Work Environment" »

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, it was meant to protect minority groups from discrimination by the majority. People of different races, genders, religions, and national origins were given the right to vote and were more protected in the workplace. The act has provided more equality for these groups for over 40 years. Sometimes, however, members of the majority discover they need protection as well.

On November 1, 2011, a jury ruled that Michael Clum, a white male, had been discriminated against after an altercation between him and a co-worker who was African-American. Mr. Clum and his co-worker were having a dispute when unfriendly words were exchanged. Mr. Clum's employer, Jackson National Life Insurance, determined his final response was violent in nature and terminated him. Mr. Clum filed a reverse discrimination suit because he was terminated and his co-worker was not reprimanded. The jury agreed that he had been discriminated against in his termination and awarded him over $1 million for lost wages and emotional distress.

In another recent case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Hamilton Growers, Inc. in Georgia on behalf of 19 workers who claim they were discriminated against because of their national origin. The 19 workers are Americans. According to the suit, Hamilton Growers, Inc. favored workers from Mexico over the American workers by giving them better job assignments that allowed them to earn more pay and by firing almost all of the American workers in the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons. The suit asks for lost wages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. This case illustrates that Title VII, the portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that specifically discusses workplace discrimination, protects people of all national origins, even Americans who are the majority. This case was filed in October, 2011 and is still pending.

Reverse religious discrimination has also been the subject of lawsuits. In Noyes v Kelly Services, Ms. Noyes claimed she was discriminated against because she was not a member of the same religious organization as her supervisor. When a manager position became available at Kelly Services, the plaintiff was passed over for another individual who had less experience and education than she did. Ms. Noyes filed suit, claiming the other woman was promoted because she was a member of Fellowship of Friends, the same organization to which her supervisor belonged. She also noted that four of the last five promotions had been given to members of the same religious group. The jury agreed with Ms. Noyes, awarding $647,000 in compensatory damages and $5.9 million in punitive damages.

Continue reading "Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace" »

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?" »

Workplace discrimination comes in several different forms. Sexual discrimination occurs when employees or potential employees are treated differently because of their gender. Negative employment decisions based solely on someone's faith constitutes religious discrimination. In the last week, cases have been filed against companies in Kentucky alleging racial discrimination and age discrimination.

On September 26th, 2011 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against River View Coal LLC alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of new employees between 2008 and 2010. Although it is unknown exactly how many people were involved, 13 people have filed complaints with the EEOC. In 2008, River View began interviewing applicants for a new mine that subsequently opened in 2009 in Waverly, Kentucky. The applicants who filed complaints were qualified and said no specific reason was given for why they were not hired or not even interviewed for the positions.

According to a press release from the EEOC, "The agency is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages against River View Coal, as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future hiring discrimination." While back pay is fairly self-explanatory, compensatory and punitive damages require a little more explanation. Compensatory damages, often called "actual damages," are damages that are less tangible than back pay. They may include pain and suffering, emotional or mental distress, or certain medical bills. Punitive damages are meant to punish the offenders to discourage them and others from repeating the offense. This type of damage can be awarded only if it can be proven that the company knew what it was doing was illegal but did it anyway. In employment cases filed under the federal anti-discrimination law, known as Title VII, both compensatory and punitive damages are capped based on the number of people employed by the company.

Continue reading "Recent Kentucky Workplace Discrimination Suits" »

On April 30, 2010, Annette Wyandotte, former dean of the School of the Arts and Letters and associate professor of English at Indiana University Southeast, filed a complaint with the Indiana office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charges were age discrimination and sex discrimination. Ms. Wyandotte was being forced to retire from her dean position on June 30, 2010.

Indiana University Southeast has a policy that requires individuals at an executive level to retire at the end of the academic year when they reach the age of 65. This may seem illegal based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects employees over 40 from being forced out of their jobs. But section C12 of the Act states, "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit compulsory retirement of any employee who has attained 65 years of age and who, for the 2-year period immediately before retirement, is employed in a bona fide executive or a high policymaking position, if such employee is entitled to an immediate nonforfeitable annual retirement benefit from a pension, profit-sharing, savings, or deferred compensation plan, or any combination of such plans, of the employer of such employee, which equals, in the aggregate, at least $44,000." This section allows employers to require individuals in higher positions to retire at a certain age to promote turnover at upper executive levels.

Ms. Wyandotte, who is currently 67, was allowed to finish out her three-year term as dean. When her term was up, she was not recommended for another term as dean, despite a 33 to 1 vote by the department to reappoint her for another three years. The vice chancellor for academic affairs said she was denied another term based on the university policy. In addition to the age discrimination claim filed with the EEOC, Ms. Wyandotte also claimed sex discrimination because exceptions to this mandatory retirement policy were made for other individuals who were male.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Complaint Filed and Settled by Ex-dean of Indiana University Southeast" »

Adolescent bullying is a hot topic right now, and includes face-to-face interactions as well as online activity. Unfortunately for some, the bullying doesn't end in their teenage years. Recent polls have shown that over 30 percent of working adults feel they have been bullied at work. No one knows for sure why people become bullies. Perhaps they were bullied themselves or they feel insecure. Some research with brain scans has shown that bullies derive pleasure from seeing someone else being hurt. Workplace bullying can include verbal, physical or emotional abuse by an employer or a co-worker.

While workplace bullying has been occurring for years, it is only recently that action has been taken to begin protecting employees both from their superiors and their co-workers. Several movements, including The Healthy Workplace Campaign, have been created to encourage legislators to take action against workplace bullying. Some forms of bullying are covered by current anti-discrimination laws. If an individual is being bullied based on his race, gender, or religious beliefs, he can take legal action under existing laws. However, if the person being bullied is not in a protected class, or if the bully is in the same protected class as the victim, filing a lawsuit becomes much more difficult.

Since 2003, 21 states have introduced workplace bullying legislation. As of today, none of the bills have become law. This legislation differs from anti-discrimination laws. It would cover all individuals, not just those in a protected class; it would make companies liable for bullying being done by co-workers, not just superiors; and it would pertain to companies of any size.

Companies are concerned that this type of legislation could lead to an enormous number of lawsuits, some legitimate, but others frivolous. Some employees may file claims simply because they were disciplined, or because they were unhappy with a review. The proposed bill in New York hopes to curb some of the unnecessary lawsuits by making employers not liable if the proper bullying prevention and correction techniques are in place. Another way a company can protect itself is to try to identify and turn away potential bullies when interviewing job applicants.

Continue reading "Bullying in Places of Employment Prompts New Legislation" »

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" »

As baby boomers age and the economy struggles to recover, the subject of age discrimination is being discussed more frequently than ever before. Everyone knows if an individual's employment is subject to wrongful termination based solely on age, it would constitute age discrimination. But there are many other situations in which age discrimination can occur.

When an employer is seeking a new employee, it is unlawful for her to directly ask the age of the prospective employee or to ask questions to help her ascertain the interviewee's age. While this is fairly common knowledge, what you may not know is that it is also illegal for an employment agency to use age as a basis for referring potential employees to a company. Some companies try to get around the age discrimination issue by having an employment agency do the screening for them. In a case involving Hollywood TV writers over 40, talent agencies were included as defendants because they were not recommending older writers to networks and studios for sitcoms or dramas. In 2010, the case was settled when the defendants agreed to pay $70 million to thousands of writers whose careers were damaged by this discrimination.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 also pertains to unions. Unions may not discriminate against potential members, nor may they use age as a basis for referring individuals for employment. A union may also be liable if it fails to act on an employer's discrimination against an employee.

An individual can be discriminated against for youth as well. Even though he may be qualified as far as experience and education, a younger applicant may be passed over for a supervisory role because the interviewer incorrectly thinks he will be less authoritative and not respected by older employees. Young female applicants may also be wrongfully denied employment if the prospective employer thinks she will need maternity leave or may decide to quit working after having a child.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination by Companies, Agencies, and Unions in Hiring and Training" »

Kentucky employment lawyers are interested to read the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its Work Force Report on July 26, 2010. This report reviews work statistics about the federal workforce.

Some of their findings included some slight changes to the work force over the last ten years. A few of these changes included:

• The number of women in the federal work force increased from 42.3% to 44.06%


• The number of Hispanic/Latinos in the federal work force rose from 6.81% to 7.9%


• The number of Asian Americans in the federal work force rose from 5.22 to 5.84%


• Also, the total number of people in the federal workforce increased by 15.09%

What is particularly striking about the report is that 16,947 complaints were filed with the EEOC in the 2009 fiscal year. Of those complaints, in only 2.98% of the cases did the EEOC investigations result in findings of discrimination. At the same time, approximately 21% of the complaints resolved in early settlements.

If you are a federal employee who feels that you have been treated unfairly, you should contact an experienced attorney to learn more about your rights.

Employment lawyers across the country, including Kentucky and Indiana, are waiting to learn whether the Supreme Court will review a 9th Circuit decision upholding a class action of approximately 1.5 millon female employees of Wal-Mart from across the country. Attorneys for the women argue that Wal-Mart engaged in a pattern of discriminatory treatment against women including paying women less than men and promoting women less frequently than men.

The trial court granted certification of this huge class, including millions of current and former Wal-Mart employees across the country. Certifying the class is the first step in a class action lawsuit. The certification process involves a judge determining, essentially, if the class members are vast in number and have similar grievances.

Continue reading "Wal-Mart Asks the United States Supreme Court to Review Class Action" »