We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In a recent decision, the federal district court was able to
easily dismiss a case alleging that the rights afforded employees
were violated. In this instance, the plaintiff was not an employee,
but rather an independent contractor. Brown v. Outback Steakhouse,
Civ. Case No. 5:14-CV-372-JMH, 2015 WL 5304617 (E.D. Ky Sept. 9,
2015).
Brown ran a company, Alfred Cleaning Services, that provided, as
it were, cleaning services to Outback Steakhouse restaurants in
Fayette and Madison County. Brown complained about the manner in
which certain Outback officers referred to him and his employees.
When the cleaning services contract was terminated, Brown brought
suit alleging violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act which, at
KRS § 344.040, declares it unlawful to discharge or
discriminate against employees who fall within certain protected
categories. In this instance, however, Brown alleged that his
company was an independent contractor of Outback. In that the
Kentucky Civil Rights Act protects employees, not independent
contractors, there was no viable claim. Further, Brown's
efforts to rely upon KRS § 344.280, which makes it unlawful to
conspire to retaliate or discriminate against a person who has
opposed a practice declared unlawful by the Kentucky Civil Rights
Act, failed in that Brown had not identified a primary violation
for which a conspiracy could attach. Rather:
He has alleged only conduct affecting an independent contractor
and, as discussed, this is not proscribed by the KCRA.
On that basis, summary judgment was granted to Outback.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Our client, we'll call them Company X, provides installation, connection, upgrades and repairs for one of the country's largest providers of residential and commercial television, telephone
Summer's not over yet! On August 28, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor issued four new letters in response to requests for opinions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Last month, the Sixth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky) revived an employee's claim that the termination of her employment, due to her inability to return to her full-time job because of her post-partum depression and separation anxiety arising from leaving her baby at home, was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Retaliation: A Workplace Soap Opera
