Breach of Employment Contract, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, and Age and Disability Discrimination. The total amount at issue was in excess of $100,000. The district court dismissed Plaintiff Complaint on summary judgment finding that plaintiff failed to establish he had an employment contract and failed to establish that he reasonably and detrimentally relied on any promises by Watson that his employment would be for a specific duration. The court also found that Plaintiff was not disabled even though he had a heart attack.

Complaint filed in Federal District Court alleging claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and spoilation against our client Garden Manor Nursing Home. We were granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.

Lead counsel defending GE against claims by a former female employee, who, after being fired following 18 years of employment, alleged sex discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, Title VII, and the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The Court granted summary judgment to GE on all claims, finding that § 1981 applied to racial but not sexual discrimination, rejecting the Title VII claim because the plaintiff had not first unsuccessfully pursued her state administrative remedies, and dismissing her claim under the Human Rights Act because she could not submit any evidence contradicting GE’s evidence suggesting poor work performance as the reason for her discharge.

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.

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.

Plaintiff brought an age and religious discrimination suit and breach of contract suit against Nationwide Credit Inc., following a reduction in force. Plaintiff brought a second suit against client for fraudulent inducement in state court to circumvent failure to amend complaint in original federal action. The total amount at issue was $300,000. The first suit was dismissed on summary judgment in favor of NCI and settled on appeal to the Sixth Circuit. The second suit was removed from state court to federal court and the case was dismissed under the first to file rule. The second lawsuit was dismissed without the client having to expend significant resources in discovery.

Lead counsel for CNR in a case in which the plaintiff brought an employment discrimination suit alleging age and race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The court granted CNR summary judgment on a number of grounds and dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff's federal claims were untimely because she did not file her complaint within 90 days of receiving her notice of right to sue, as required under Title VII. The court exercised its supplemental jurisdiction to address the plaintiff's state law claims, and held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under Human Rights Act because there was no evidence to support a reasonable inference of age or race discrimination.

The plaintiff claimed she received negative performance reviews and was demoted because of her gender (as management at this national sports marketing company were male former athlestes) and as a result of a disability. She also claimed she was the subject of retaliation when she complained about this discrimination, including threats and physical assault from a supervisor. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.

Plaintiff brought class action intentional tort claims and product liability claims. Successfully negotiated dismissal of claims against client without payment by client.

Our firm defended a large national insurance company in a disability discrimination and wrongful discharge lawsuit where the plaintiff alleged she was fired because of a disability and/or in retaliation for complaints about company claim handling practices. A summary judgment was entered and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

In this appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, Dinsmore argued that an employment policy that imposes a uniform minimum length of service requirement for leave eligibility with no exception for maternity leave is not direct evidence of sex discrimination under Revised Code Chapter 4112, seeking reversal of the Fifth District Court of Appeals. After full briefing and oral argument to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Supreme Court agreed establishing, as a proposition of law, that an employment policy that imposes a uniform minimum length of service requirement for leave eligibility with no exception for maternity leave is not direct evidence of sex discrimination under R.C. Chapter 4112.

Plaintiff Union claimed violation of prevailing wage and hour laws under Ohio Revised Code. Successfully negotiated a settlement at less than 50% of full value of case and avoided attorneys fees.

Obtained summary judgment in United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on disability discrimination claim brought by former employee.

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.