In May of 2013, the United States District Court in the Western District of Kentucky heard a case involving a woman who brought Title VII claims against her former employer. (See Graham v. City of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, 2013 WL 212087 (W.D. KY 2013)). In this case the Plaintiff was hired as a telecommunications officer in July of 2009. While at work, plaintiff did not get along with a female co-worker. It was later found out that a rumor had started that the plaintiff had gone to a strip club with some of the police officers which embarrassed plaintiff because it was not true. Then, plaintiff was moved to a different shift and all seemed ok. But, then in March of 2010 problems started again and plaintiff thought that there were breaches of protocol, favoritism and mistreatment to plaintiff.
Plaintiff was fired on May 27, 2010 a few days after she had turned in a complaint to her director detailing her conflicts with one of the officers. Plaintiff went to the grievance board and got her job back. Plaintiff was placed on six months probation. During that time plaintiff was late to work three times from November to December 2010. Finally, on February 16, 2012, plaintiff hired a Kentucky Title VII lawyer and brought suit against her supervisors and coworkers.
Plaintiff’s Kentucky Title VII lawyer brought the Title VII claims along with state law claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, criminal malfeasance, and criminal falsification of business records. Id. The defendants filed for summary judgment and this matter was before the court.
As to the individual defendants and the claims for race discrimination, the plaintiff agreed they should not be held accountable so the court granted the defendant’s motion on this issue. The individual defendants were not plaintiff’s employer. Defendant’s Kentucky Title VII lawyer won this issue and all the rest.
Next the Kentucky Title VII lawyer argued for the claim of race discrimination. The court granted the motion for summary judgment because the comments that were made were not made at her. Further, the court stated that “Title VII was not designed to purge the workplace of vulgarity.” (cites omitted).
As to the sexual harassment claim, as it pertains to her employer, the court dismissed this count as well in that the comments made were not pervasive or showing a course of discriminatory conduct. Thus, plaintiff’s claim for a hostile work environment, since the comments or incidents were not pervasive, the court dismissed them as well. As any Kentucky Title VII lawyer will tell you, proving a hostile work environment case is very difficult.
On to the count for retaliation. As to that count, the court granted the retaliation claim as well. The court did not think that the plaintiff made out her prima facie case. Any claims based on plaintiff’s heterosexual orientation is not actionable. (cites omitted).
Finally as to the wrongful termination, the court granted dismissal of that and all other claims as well. Plaintiff was an at-will employee. She was on probation when terminated. As Kentucky requires a clear statement of the intention to modify the at-will relationship, plaintiff was still an at-will employee.
If you have been the subject of a Kentucky Title VII case, please call and speak to a Kentucky Title VII lawyer 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!!!