Experience
Defense Verdict in Race Hostile Work Environment Claim
The plaintiff was an 11-year employee of a manufacturing company who was terminated for violation of the Company’s attendance policy after he failed to submit required documentation. The plaintiff filed suit under Kentucky’s Civil Rights Act, KRS Chapter 344, alleging that he was terminated due to his race and for complaining about race discrimination, as well as forced to work in unsafe working conditions and subjected to disparate disciplinary action. He also alleged a hostile work environment claim, relying on what he claimed to be widespread racial graffiti throughout the plant and restrooms, as well as the presence of “nooses” on two different occasions.
Following discovery, the company filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that he had been terminated due to his race or in retaliation for complaining about race discrimination inasmuch as he was unable to rebut the employer's legitimate business reason for his termination. In addition, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that he and other minority employees had been forced to work in unsafe working conditions as barred due to his failure to pursue his administrative remedy and because he lacked evidence that minority employees were singled out.
In February 2012, the case was tried in Jefferson Circuit Court on the plaintiff’s remaining claim that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The Company presented proof that nearly 20% of its workforce is African-American and that almost half of those employees had worked for the Company for over 15 years. The manufacturer also put on evidence of its zero tolerance for harassment of any kind. Following a two-day trial which included testimony of seven witnesses, the 12-person jury found unanimously in favor of the company on the plaintiff’s claim that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment due to the presence of rope nooses and racial graffiti. After the trial court denied a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed the jury verdict to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, but voluntarily dismissed his appeal before filing his brief, concluding this matter.
Following discovery, the company filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that he had been terminated due to his race or in retaliation for complaining about race discrimination inasmuch as he was unable to rebut the employer's legitimate business reason for his termination. In addition, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that he and other minority employees had been forced to work in unsafe working conditions as barred due to his failure to pursue his administrative remedy and because he lacked evidence that minority employees were singled out.
In February 2012, the case was tried in Jefferson Circuit Court on the plaintiff’s remaining claim that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The Company presented proof that nearly 20% of its workforce is African-American and that almost half of those employees had worked for the Company for over 15 years. The manufacturer also put on evidence of its zero tolerance for harassment of any kind. Following a two-day trial which included testimony of seven witnesses, the 12-person jury found unanimously in favor of the company on the plaintiff’s claim that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment due to the presence of rope nooses and racial graffiti. After the trial court denied a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed the jury verdict to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, but voluntarily dismissed his appeal before filing his brief, concluding this matter.
Developed Entire Workforce Governance Framework for New Company
Above and Beyond
The success of any business is directly tied to its employees. From their tangible contributions to the company to the mindset and culture they instill, a good workforce can be the tool that takes a company to the next level.
Tri-Arrows Aluminum embraces a “gold standard” approach to doing business, challenging its employees to go above the call of duty and push the company to new heights while also maintaining an atmosphere of conducting business the “right way.” Formerly a subsidiary of BP Company North America that was known as ARCO Aluminum, Tri-Arrows turned to Dinsmore for counsel when it became clear it would soon be an independent company. Recognizing the opportunity to start anew, Tri-Arrows enlisted Dinsmore to begin drafting new policies and procedures, including a new payroll structure and performance review system, as well as providing guidance on which employment laws the new company was, or was not, required to comply with in its new form with a smaller workforce. Integrating ourselves in the culture of the new company, we drafted a new employee handbook, modifying the legacy policies to fit the new regime, but also constructing a unique framework that reflected the objectives of Tri-Arrows.
Once the basic framework for their employment procedures was established, we continued to offer guidance on business ethics, including conducting on-site Code of Ethics training for employees. Understanding the potential for concern caused by Tri-Arrows unique joint venture agreement, in which they have shared manufacturing facilities with a competitor for over a quarter of a century, our team worked with Tri-Arrows’ employees to address issues of confidentiality and the handling of business-sensitive information, arming the employees with the knowledge they needed to uphold the company’s mission without compromising proprietary information.
As Tri-Arrows continues to grow, its employment needs grow as well. Our attorneys have teamed with the company to provide a variety of services, including reviewing compensation plans, detailing job descriptions and employee classifications, and formally instituting a performance evaluation process. Our detail-oriented approach to employment counseling has fallen in step with Tri-Arrows’ professional culture, and we’ve helped this newly-formed company build a solid foundation that will enable it to reach the next level.
The success of any business is directly tied to its employees. From their tangible contributions to the company to the mindset and culture they instill, a good workforce can be the tool that takes a company to the next level.
Tri-Arrows Aluminum embraces a “gold standard” approach to doing business, challenging its employees to go above the call of duty and push the company to new heights while also maintaining an atmosphere of conducting business the “right way.” Formerly a subsidiary of BP Company North America that was known as ARCO Aluminum, Tri-Arrows turned to Dinsmore for counsel when it became clear it would soon be an independent company. Recognizing the opportunity to start anew, Tri-Arrows enlisted Dinsmore to begin drafting new policies and procedures, including a new payroll structure and performance review system, as well as providing guidance on which employment laws the new company was, or was not, required to comply with in its new form with a smaller workforce. Integrating ourselves in the culture of the new company, we drafted a new employee handbook, modifying the legacy policies to fit the new regime, but also constructing a unique framework that reflected the objectives of Tri-Arrows.
Once the basic framework for their employment procedures was established, we continued to offer guidance on business ethics, including conducting on-site Code of Ethics training for employees. Understanding the potential for concern caused by Tri-Arrows unique joint venture agreement, in which they have shared manufacturing facilities with a competitor for over a quarter of a century, our team worked with Tri-Arrows’ employees to address issues of confidentiality and the handling of business-sensitive information, arming the employees with the knowledge they needed to uphold the company’s mission without compromising proprietary information.
As Tri-Arrows continues to grow, its employment needs grow as well. Our attorneys have teamed with the company to provide a variety of services, including reviewing compensation plans, detailing job descriptions and employee classifications, and formally instituting a performance evaluation process. Our detail-oriented approach to employment counseling has fallen in step with Tri-Arrows’ professional culture, and we’ve helped this newly-formed company build a solid foundation that will enable it to reach the next level.
Employment Litigation, Counsel for a Nationally-Renowned Hospital
The unique settings of hospitals and medical care centers present a number of employment challenges, from industry-specific statutes and regulations to general employment matters, such as discrimination. One of the most renowned hospital systems in the country turns to Dinsmore to advise it through their employment matters, ensuring that their business runs efficiently and continues to provide quality health care. We counsel the client through a wide variety of employment matters, including defense of claims of discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination. We also routinely advise the client on statutory causes of action, specifically those related to whistleblower protection under the Kentucky Nurse Practice Act, as well as handling administrative matters with the EEOC and the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights. We have also worked with the client during Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) litigation, which has included working with third-party contractors to find resolutions. As a medical provider for the public, our client is obligated to provide treatment without regard to disability or national or ethnic origin, giving rise to the need to provide public accommodation such as American sign language (ASL) and language interpreters Given that our client’s facility is open 24 hours a day and work shifts differ from those at a “typical” business, we also have advised the client on a number of wage/hour issues, which has included drafting policies related to overtime compensation, employee breaks and clock-in procedures. Ultimately, we work with the client proactively to provide advice and counseling on employment issues, helping to avoid problems before they arise. But, we also stand ready to defend lawsuits, complaints, and administrative proceedings when necessary.
Priscilla Parker v. Pediatric Acute Care, P.S.C.
Plaintiff Priscilla Parker was a long-time employee of Pediatric Acute Care who ultimately rose to the level of office manager position. At the company's holiday party, two female co-workers presented Parker with a “gag gift” consisting of a gift card to an adult store named Priscilla’s, which sold lingerie, adult sex toys and sexual movies. After the party, Parker complained numerous times about the gift to PAC’s co-owner. Meanwhile, Parker became increasingly unable to meet her job duties; she failed to pay important invoices such as health insurance premiums and insurance bills, made payroll errors, and failed to address problems with the office phone system. PAC terminated Parker’s employment in May, 2004. Parker alleged that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and to retaliatory discharge for complaining about the “gag gift.” After the trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, Parker appealed. The Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of Parker’s claims. 28 WL 746677 (Ky. App. 2008). The Court of Appeals panel agreed that the single instance of the presentation of the gag gift was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute unlawful sexual harassment under KRS 344. Further, the appellate court held that Parker’s retaliatory discharge claim also failed because “such an action must be predicated on a causal connection between the statutorily-protected activity and the termination of employment.” Because Parker did not offer proof sufficient to sustain her claim of a sexually hostile work environment, the Court determined that Parker could not proceed with her claim of retaliation for having complained about the incident. Accordingly, the Court affirmed summary judgment and the case was dismissed in its entirety.
Race Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Case
Just one month before trial in August 2012, Dinsmore obtained a summary dismissal of a suit filed by a former security officer who was terminated after 13 years of employment for failing to immediately report to his superiors information regarding possible theft of the Company’s product, alcoholic beverages. The officer alleged that he was subjected to race discrimination and a racially hostile work environment and that he had been terminated in retaliation for having filed two EEOC charges 2½ years earlier. The officer also acknowledged that he had failed to timely report information about possible theft, but claimed that a “mixed-motive” standard should apply, allowing a plaintiff to proceed by arguing that his termination was motivated by both lawful and unlawful reasons. The Court rejected this theory, stating that the officer had not proffered evidence that any employee who failed to timely report suspected theft received a less severe discipline. Further, the Court dismissed the officer’s racially hostile work environment claim on the grounds that the two instances upon which he based his claims were not directed at him because of his race and did not constitute racial harassment. Finally, the Court dismissed the retaliatory discharge claim on the grounds that the officer did not proffer evidence of a causal connection between his 2005 EEOC charges (both of which were dismissed) and his 2008 termination. Accordingly, the case was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the summary dismissal of the security officer's claims in their entirety.
Wanda Johnson v. Health Institute of Louisville
Plaintiff Wanda Johnson sued the Health Institute of Louisville alleging that she had been subjected to unlawful gender discrimination and retaliation under Title IX after she alleged that she was sexually harassed by a male instructor and falsely claimed to have filed a sexual harassment charge against the school with the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights. After a week-long jury trial in 2003 in the Western District of Kentucky, presided over by Judge John G. Heyburn, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Health Institute.