We represented Defendant General Motors in a suit filed by its employee under the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., alleging breach of fiduciary obligations and equitable or promissory estoppel.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgement for the employer.

Plaintiff brought an employment intentional tort claim after she was jailed on contempt charges by a judge for failing to attend a settlement conference as an insurance adjuster.

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).

We represented Jewish Hospital when a former certified respiratory therapist, also performing echo cardiograms, alleged that her termination was retaliation for her reporting of a change in her work schedule that she alleged would cause her to perform services that jeopardized her state certification. Summary judgment was obtained on the wrongful discharge public policy claim and later upheld in the Kentucky Court of Appeals for our client. Following the ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the plaintiff filed for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court, but was denied. Russell v. Jewish Hospital, 2004 Ky. App. Unpublished LEXIS 890 (Ky. App. 2004)

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.

Represented client in a case against executives violating a convenant not to compete. Successfully obtained restraining order and royalty payments from competing business.

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.

Oversaw the negotiation and preparation of severance packages for local executives, resulting in substantial payments to the clients.

The plaintiff, a former insurance agent, claimed that the large national insurance company defamed him in order to divert business to a new agent. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.

Lead counsel in the successful defense of Georgia Pacific against claims by a group of former workers whose employment was terminated when Georgia Pacific sold a sawmill to a successor company. The plaintiffs contended that Georgia Pacific violated the terms of their collective bargaining agreement by not ensuring their subsequent employment with the successor company, and filed suit under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court found that the sale of the sawmill did not violate the CBA, as it reserved exclusively to Georgia Pacific certain rights, including the right to plan, direct, control, increase, decrease, or discontinue operations, or to move, close, sell, or liquidate it whole or in part. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to Georgia Pacific.

The firm represented The Courier-Journal before the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in a matter involving summary judgment standards and disability issues.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's determination of summary judgment for the Defendant employer.

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.

Plaintiff, a current employee and chef at a large resort, claimed that she was discriminated against based in her gender, specifically that she did not receive five promotions to which she alleged she was entitled. Despite a demand for damages in the upper six figures, during a mediation we resolved the case favorably for the client by offering her an open position at the resort as she was still a current employee, but paid no damages to settle the case.

An employee whistleblower accused the Company of illegal and unethical practices related to advertising claims for its products.  We responded very quickly to the client's need for an objective, honest, internal investigation.  Over the course of six weeks, we interviewed numerous Company employees and managers, prepared a detailed investigation report with recommendations, and conducted a meeting with the employee whistleblower.