The plaintiff claimed she was the subject of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment created by the lewd comments, dirty jokes and sexual overtures from her supervisor; that her complaints were ignored; and that she was thereafter constructively discharged. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.

Co-counsel representing large aluminum manufacturers against class action claims filed on behalf of over 300 employees who were laid off and never recalled to work. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants violated § 510 of ERISA by terminating them in order to prevent vesting of their employee benefit plans, and sought job reinstatement and massive awards damages for lost wages and lost benefits, as well as punitive damages. In ruling of the defendants’ pretrial motions, the court denied class certification, concluded that § 510 did not provide a right to extra-contractual relief or punitive damages in an ERISA action seeking enforcement through § 502(a), and held that the employees did not have a right to a jury trial. The parties then settled the case on terms viewed as very favorable by Kaiser and Ravenswood.

Co-counsel defending Ashland Oil against claims initiated by a former refinery engineer who was terminated from his employment after the company found that he had engaged in conduct in violation of its sexual harassment policy. The plaintiff asserted claims against Ashland Oil for wrongful discharge in violation of West Virginia public policy, defamation and fraud. Following cross examination of the plaintiff on the first day of trial, the court invited us to move for a directed verdict. To avoid that result, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims and trial was concluded.

An employee of our client Pamida, a former chain of department stores, was terminated following an investigation into claims of sexual harassment. The employee alleged that he was terminated as a result of reporting his concerns about “waste, fraud and abuse,” including the sale of out-dated over-the-counter medicine, and he filed a suit against our client claiming wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and defamation resulting from the investigation. We thoroughly investigated the claims, and determined that the employee’s termination was valid. We then obtained summary judgment on all the claims. Stargle v. Pamida, Inc., 2007 U.S. District LEXIS 50579 (W.D. Ky. 2007).

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.

Lead counsel for AT&T in litigation alleging that the plaintiff had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex, and was constructively discharged when she was forced to resign from her employment in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. AT&T sought summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff had failed to show that the conduct alleged to create a hostile environment was gender-based, and further that she has failed to establish that her working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to quit. Summary judgment was granted to AT&T.

Successfully defended Country Club where Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination, violation of contract, wrongful discharge, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Lead counsel in defense of Regis in a class action claim alleging that, for a period of five years, it failed to issue final paychecks to former involuntarily discharged employees within 72 hours as required by the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. At issue are complex questions as to numerosity, commonality and typicality of the claims and defenses of the class, as well as the proper method for determining reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs potentially payable to class counsel. This matter remains in active litigation.

Lead counsel in case in which the plaintiff was terminated from her employment by AT&T for excessive absences due to plaintiff's and spouse's illnesses. After her termination, the plaintiff brought suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act and moved for partial summary judgment, which was granted. A trial was subsequently held to determine damages, the issues being whether plaintiff was entitled to back pay, front pay, and liquidated damages. The court ordered that plaintiff be paid back pay with interest, but adopted AT&T’s argument that the speculative nature of front pay made reinstatement a more appropriate remedy. Further, the court found that AT&T had acted in good faith and with reasonable grounds to believe that it acted properly, and thus that liquidated damages were not awardable.

Defended a claim of sexural harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge against a restaurant franchisee arising from the act of a supervisor. This claim was settled on favorable terms after the verdict in Sue Spencer v. Feather, Inc.

The plaintiff claimed she was constructively discharged by the hospital for refusing to perform ecocardiographs which she claimed were intrusive procedures which would constitute a violation of her license as a respiratory therapist, and thus against Kentucky public policy. The client received a summary judgement from the trial court, which was upheld on appeal after oral argument.