In October of 2012, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky heard a case in where the plaintiff, a male employee, filed a lawsuit alleging reverse discrimination and improper discharge from employment, hostile work environment(sexual harassment), and the tort of outrage. (See Jones v. Toyotetsu America, Inc., 2012 WL 5305737 (Ky. App. 2012)). In this Kentucky sexual harassment and reverse discrimination case, the plaintiff was appealing an Order from the trial court which granted the dismissal of his case. This appellate court affirmed the trial court for the following reasons.
The plaintiff in this case worked for the defendant in 2008. Id. On December 9, 2008 there was an incident between the plaintiff and another worker where the other worker grabbed plaintiff’s stomach fat and plaintiff said if you do it again I’m going to hit you and the other worker did it again, and plaintiff shoved him away with an open hand. Another employee witnessed this and reported it to the company. Plaintiff was suspended pending an investigation. After the investigation, plaintiff was terminated for threatening and striking the other worker. Plaintiff then hired a Kentucky sexual harassment and reverse discrimination attorney and filed the lawsuit setting out claims of battery, sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, reverse discrimination and the tort of outrage. Id.
Plaintiff in response to the motion for summary judgment argued that he was discharged because he was defending himself against sexual harassment by a co-worker, which would not have happened if he had been a woman in the very same circumstances. Id.
In this Kentucky sexual harassment and reverse discrimination case, the court looked at KRS 344.040 which states in part that it is unlawful for a covered employer to discharge any individual or to otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the conditions or terms of employment because of the individual’s gender. Id. “In proving a prima facie case of discrimination, the claimant must prove that he or she 1) is a member of a protected class, 2) was subjected to adverse employment action, 3) was qualified for his or her position, and 4) was replaced by, or treated less favorably than, a person outside the protected class.” (cites omitted). A prima facie case of ‘reverse discrimination’ is established upon a showing that background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. Id. To this issue the court opined that the plaintiff offered nothing more than mere speculation to support his claim. Id. There was no proof that the defendant gave female employees more protection than it did its male employees. Id.
As to the claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment, the court held that the plaintiff was not able to present any evidence at trial that the unwelcomed touching was sexual in nature. Id. Plaintiff was not able to show that 1) he was a member of a protected class, 2) he was subjected to unwelcomed sexual harassment, 3) the harassment was based on his sex, 4) the harassment created a hostile work environment, and 5) the employer is vicariously liable. (cites omitted). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
If you have been the subject of a Kentucky Sexual Harassment and Reverse
Discrimination case, please call and speak to a Kentucky Sexual Harassment and Reverse Discrimination attorney at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!