Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC - Practice Groups

Recognized as a regional and national force in the field, Greenebaum's Labor and Employment group taps the experience and knowledge of an exceptional cadre of attorneys. The group boasts an enviable record and a top-flight client base, including industry leaders in manufacturing, health care, automotive and restaurants.

To better serve our diverse client base with their specific needs, the Labor and Employment group is composed of the following cross-disciplinary teams:

Automotive
Collective and Class Action
Covenant Not to Compete and Trade Secrets
Employment Practices Liability Counseling
Labor Management Relations
Workplace Safety and Health

Greenebaum recognized early on the value of preventative counseling and training. Committed to helping employers enhance their employee relationships while minimizing the risk of costly and adverse claims, our attorneys have on-line training programs available for our clients to meet their obligations under the law.

When disputes arise, Greenebaum helps employers respond appropriately to reach rapid resolution. Greenebaum attorneys have handled landmark cases under the National Labor Relations Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. We regularly litigate claims of affirmative action, sexual harassment, discrimination and wrongful discharge – setting precedents for courts throughout the country and changing the way that employers deal with employees.

Our clients' achievements are a measure of our attorneys' preparation, diligence and legal knowledge. Several have assumed leadership positions in the Labor and Employment divisions of national, state and local bar associations. We are trustworthy advisors on the broad scope of employment and labor issues, including occupational safety and health acts, collective bargaining, wage and hour, covenants not to compete and affirmative action compliance.

Selected Opinions in Favor of Clients of Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC Labor Group

Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Johnson, No. 2007-SC-000647-MR (Ky. 2009)
Greenebaum attorneys represented Toyota and successfully obtained extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus from the Kentucky Supreme Court to prohibit a trial court from reopening litigation the trial court’s predecessor had dismissed over seven years earlier. The case involved a putative class action of over 1000 current and former employees, and alleged wage and hour violations concerning donning and doffing of work clothes.

Bravo Development, Inc. v. Singleton, No. 2007 SC-00769-DG (Ky. 2009 – unpublished opinion)
Greenebaum attorneys drafted Amicus brief to Supreme Court on behalf of industry association to assist in overturning decision of Court of Appeals which held that plain language of general release agreement signed by plaintiff with Kentucky Department of Labor concerning a Wage and Hour claim did not bar claims for additional relief arising out of the same wage dispute, but not specifically covered in the release. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, holding that the release settling plaintiff’s claims through the Kentucky Department of Labor waived all of his wage and hour claims, including all forms of recovery potentially available in a subsequent civil action. Had the Supreme Court failed to reverse, plaintiffs would have been permitted to “release” claims and receive compensation, only to then come back for more in another forum.

Papa John’s Int’l, Inc. v. McCoy, 244 S.W.3d 44 (Ky. 2008)
In a case of first impression concerning franchisor/franchisee liability, Greenebaum attorneys undertook representation of Papa John’s following adverse Court of Appeals decision (No. 2003-CA-2177 and No. 2003-CA-2241), which would have imputed liability to international franchisor for the intentional torts of franchisee’s employee, even in the absence of any supervision or other involvement with franchisee’s employees. Greenebaum attorneys successfully argued that a franchisor could not be held liable in the absence of control or a right to control the aspect of the franchisee’s business which caused the alleged harm.

Humana Inc. v. Blose, 247 S.W.3d 892 (Ky. 2008)
The Kentucky Supreme Court, after granting review of adverse Court of Appeals’ decision, issued a 7-0 opinion in favor of our client’s position on the application of Kentucky release law to statutory claims of discrimination under Kentucky and federal law, overturning the Court of Appeals’ opinion which expanded an obscure 1988 opinion to limit our client’s remedy to a counterclaim for breach of the severance and release agreement.

Steven Brown, et al. v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 05-CI-04575 (Jeff. Cir. Ct., Div. 4, Kentucky, 2008)
The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, Columbia Sussex Corp. The Court agreed with the employer that it would be impossible for the Plaintiffs to establish the existence of a hostile work environment against ‘Americans,’ noting that the Plaintiffs had not even asserted that they were forced into quitting due to the intolerable conditions in the workplace. The Court also ruled that, even if Plaintiffs could establish that there was a hostile work environment against ‘Americans,’ the Defendant would be able to present the affirmative defense based on its anti-harassment policy, which included a reporting mechanism that Plaintiffs had failed to utilize.

Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 506 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2007)
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment granted by the district court for the Southern District of Ohio in favor of our client, Speedway SuperAmerica, on a former employee's claims for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio wage and hour law, as well as for age discrimination. The court found that Speedway had convincingly proved that Ms. Thomas was an executive who was exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the federal and Ohio law, and that the company had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas was the named-plaintiff in a conditionally certified class and collective action of potentially 600 current and former store managers for overtime claims. With the granting of the summary judgment, the entire lawsuit was dismissed.

Matthews v. Atria Huntington, 2:05-CV-04721 (E.D. New York 2007)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of our client for a former employee’s age discrimination claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New York Human Rights Law. The court found that there was no evidence that the employee’s age was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate employment.

Cole v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., 3:05-CV-00106 (S.D. Ind. 2006)
The federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, granted summary judgment in favor of our client, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc., on a former employee's claims for disability discrimination, age discrimination, and workers' compensation retaliation. The court held that Toyota had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decisions and that it did not discriminate or retaliate against the employee in any manner. The matter was not appealed.

Bailey-Pittman v. Unisia of Georgia Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671 (M.D. Ga. 2006)
The federal district court in the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division, granted our summary judgment motion in favor of our client, Unisia of Georgia Corporation (an automotive parts manufacturer), on a former employee's claims of race and sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Title VII, as well as claims of defamation and negligent supervision. The court found that Unisia had demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its business decisions affecting the former employee’s employment.

Hall v. Consol of Kentucky, Inc. (6th Cir. 2006)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal in favor of our client in a case brought by a former employee for wrongful discharge, outrage, and breach of implied contract. The Court found that the employee had not stated a wrongful discharge claim under Kentucky law because he failed to state that he acted according to rights well-established by the legislature. Further, his allegations of outrage were insufficient to state a claim under Kentucky’s rigorous standard for such claims, and his breach of implied contract claim was defeated because nothing in the company’s handbook indicated any intent to modify the employee’s at-will employment status.

Thomas A. Clark, Jr. v. Columbia Properties Louisville, Ltd., et al., 04-CI-5316 (Jefferson Cir. Ct., Div. 11, Kentucky, 2006)
The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment after concluding that it would be impossible for the Plaintiff to prevail on his negligent hiring, reverse race-discrimination and retaliation claims. The Court agreed with Defendants that the employer had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Plaintiff’s employment for brandishing a knife against a co-worker. Finally, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that he had been discriminated against because he had previously been diagnosed with cancer. The Court rejected all of Plaintiff’s discrimination claims, noting that the employer had been sympathetic and accommodating when informed of his cancer. The case was not appealed.

Dickert v. Ansei America, Inc., 2:04 CV 00107 (M.D. Tenn. 2005)
The federal district court in the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted our summary judgment motion in favor of our client, Ansei America, Inc. (an automotive parts manufacturer), on a former employee's claim of age discrimination. The court found that Ansei had legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for reassigning and terminating this former employee.

Hamby v. Ansei America, Inc., 2:04 CV 00106 (M.D. Tenn. 2005)
The federal district court in the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted summary judgment in favor of our client, Ansei America, Inc., on a male employee's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. The court found that there the company did not sexually harass the former employee and that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating the employee.

Beck v. Speedway SuperAmerica, 3:03 CV 00190 (W.D. Ky. 2005)
The federal district court in the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted our summary judgment motion in favor of our client, Speedway SuperAmerica, on a customer's claims for premises liability, negligent hiring and negligent supervision regarding the actions of a former convenience store employee. The court found that Speedway had taken legitimate and lawful steps to train its employee and to prevent injury in the store.

Logan v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC (6th Cir. 2005)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of our client in a claim brought by a former employee under the disability portion of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The Court found that the employee failed to prove that her former employer perceived her as substantially limited as to the major life activity of working, and that she was therefore ineligible for protection under the Act.

Miller v. PPG Industries, Inc., 2:CI 06414 (Jeff. Cir. Court, Div. 13, Kentucky, 2005)
The circuit court in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of our client, PPG Industries, Inc., with respect to breach of contract claims. The court found that PPG convincingly proved that the former employee was not entitled to the monetary damages because there was no breach of contract and that the employee had ratified a release agreement for the claims at issue.

Patricia A. Benningfield v. Southern States Cooperative, Inc., 1:04CV-110-M (W.D. Ky. 2005)
The Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Bowling Green Division, granted summary judgment in favor of our client, Southern States Cooperative, Inc., on a former employee’s sex discrimination claim alleging violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The Court held that Southern States had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decision to eliminate Plaintiff’s position and terminate her employment without transferring her to other locations. The case was not appealed.

Zazueta v. Kentucky Community & Technical College System, et al., 02-CV-14 (E.D. Ky. 2004)
The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division, granted the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant, the Kentucky Community & Technical College System. The Plaintiff had filed a Complaint alleging a variety of claims, including that her termination of employment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and her constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. She further claimed her contract of employment had been breached and that she had been defamed. Initially, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss all but one claim, for Title VII discrimination, on which the Court later granted summary judgment. The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that she had been constructively discharged because she was being investigated for “gross mismanagement” related to her misrepresentation of records. The Plaintiff produced no evidence that any similarly situated non-protected individuals were treated more favorably than she, or that she was replaced by a person outside the Kentucky class. Accordingly, the Court held that she failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and found that, even if she could have, she presented no evidence to rebut the legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for her removal, i.e., the results of the investigation into her misconduct. This case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the decision.

Patricia Coffey v. Texas Roadhouse of Dixie Highway, et al., 03-CI-4332 (Jeff. Cir. Ct., Div. 13, Kentucky, 2004)
The Jefferson Circuit Court, Division 13, granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of our client, Texas Roadhouse of Dixie Highway (“Texas Roadhouse”). The Plaintiff had alleged that she had been wrongfully discharged and retaliated against in violation of Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff had taken notes related to her son’s previous lawsuit against the Defendant, which the Court found was activity protected under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The Court held, however, that the Plaintiff could not present sufficient evidence to create a dispute of fact that her termination was in retaliation related to her involvement in her son’s previous lawsuit. The Court noted that Defendant had presented evidence of favorable treatment to the Plaintiff. The Court noted that the time period of four months between the Defendant’s discovery of her involvement and her termination, during which time she continued working and enjoying similar benefits as before, established that the reason for her termination, drinking on the job, was a legitimate and non-retaliatory reason for her termination of employment. The case was not appealed.

Hisel v. Trim Masters, Inc., Ky. App., 2002-CA-0017-59 (June 27, 2003)
The circuit court in Nicholasville, Jessamine County, Kentucky, granted our summary judgment motion in favor of our client, Trim Masters, Inc. (a manufacturer of automobile seats and door panels), on a former employee's claims for disability discrimination under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The trial court found that Trim Masters' had demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment actions with respect to the former employee and that it had not discriminated against the employee in any manner. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Trim Masters.

Williams v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., 534 U.S. 184 (2002)
The United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in which it had held that a plaintiff could be “disabled” under the ADA if she was unable to perform certain manual tasks associated with her job. The Supreme Court held that individuals relying on the major life activity of performing manual tasks “must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives” and the impairment must be permanent or long-term. This decision will make it much more difficult for ADA plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a disability by relying on the major life activity of “performing manual tasks.”

Lyon v. Continental General Tire, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:99CV-354-R (W.D. Ky. 2001)
The court dismissed a former employee’s claim under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act that General Tire breached a last chance agreement, holding that the employee had failed to prove: (i) that his union (although not a party to the lawsuit) breached its duty of fair representation, and (ii) that General Tire had breached the last chance agreement.

Union Underwear Co. v. Barnhart, 50 S.W.2d 188 (Ky. 2001)
In a case of first impression, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that an individual employed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Kentucky could not state a cause of action against his Kentucky based employer under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The Court concluded that unless a contrary intent appeared in the statute’s language, it had to presume that the statute applied only within the territorial boundaries of the Commonwealth.

Enoch v. Continental General Tire, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 5:99CV-174-J (W.D. Ky. 12/22/2000 and 3/5/2001)
The court issued two opinions (the latter following General Tire’s motion to alter or amend) dismissing a former employee’s claims against his union and General Tire, arising out of his termination and a subsequent arbitration upholding that termination. The Court found the employee’s claims to be preempted by LMRA section 301, and held that the claims failed because: (i) they were untimely, and (ii) the employee denied that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

Price v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, Inc., 00-106 (E.D. Ky. 2001)
The federal district court held, in a class action filed against various employers operating in maritime, that the Fair Labor Standards Act preempted the overtime provisions of the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act insofar as it related to seaman who were employed on line haul boats that operated in interstate commerce.

Norsworthy v. The Kroger Co., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 497 (6th Cir. 2000)
The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment to the employer under the ADA, holding that an employer is not obligated to create light duty work or continue light duty assignments indefinitely. The court further held that an employer who exceeds the requirements of the ADA with respect to one individual is not obligated to do so in similar situations involving other employees.

Kelley et al v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.
In its January 11, 2002 decision, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit involving more than 1000 TMMK team members, with damage potential in the millions of dollars. The Court of Appeals agreed with TMMK that the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the claims and that the plaintiffs did not have an employment contract with TMMK.

Epelbaum v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 2000 WL 1033040 (6th Cir. 2000)
In a case of first impression, claims of national origin discrimination, harassment and wrongful death brought by estate of an ex-employee who had committed suicide, the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the decedent was “offended” by conduct on which the harassment claim was based and, further, that suicide was a superceding, intervening event breaking the chain of liability on the wrongful death claim.

Audubon Regional Medical Center, 331 NLRB No. 42 (2000)
The National Labor Relations Board declined to adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s recommended order that the hospital be required to bargain with the Union. In a break from long-standing precedent, the Board held that the passage of time and turnover in management staff rendered a bargaining order inappropriate.

Teamsters Local 89 v. Willamette Indus., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 15181 (6th Cir. 1999)
The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer in a case in which the employer sought to overturn an arbitration decision on the grounds that the arbitrator ignored clear language in the labor agreement relating to discharge.

Bratcher v. Bloom, 97-CA-001358 (Ky. App. 1999)
In a case of first impression, the Kentucky Court of Appeals determined that individual liability does not exist for alleged violations of the non-retaliation provisions of the workers’ compensation law, KRS 342-197. The court further affirmed the decision of the circuit court in which the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence from which to conclude that her termination was in retaliation for pursuing a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act. In addition, as an issue of first impression, the court determined that an employer was not required to accommodate an employee with a work-related injury by reassignment under the workers’ compensation law.

United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:97-CV-112-M (W.D. Ky. 1997) aff’d 162 F. 3d 447 (6th Cir. 1998)
In case of first impression, Sixth Circuit held that medical eligibility determinations are not arbitrable under the parties’ labor contract.

Stacy v. Shoney’s Inc., 955 F. Supp. 751 (E.D. Ky. 1997), aff’d, 1998 WL 165139 (6th Cir. 1998)
The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient to support her claim of constructive discharge and hostile work environment sexual harassment because the alleged harassment was not “sufficiently severe or pervasive” and the employer acted promptly and appropriately to her complaints.

Bauer v. Varity Dayton-Walther Corporation, 118 F.3d 1109 (6th Cir. 1997)
In the first Kentucky reported decision under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the U. S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff did not suffer from a "serious health condition" and, therefore, was not eligible for protection under the FMLA.

David Stephen Brown, et al. v. JC Penney Company, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:97CV 497 R (W.D. Ky. 1998)
In the first decision issued within the Sixth Circuit addressing the enforceability of a company’s mandatory arbitration procedure based solely upon an employee’s receipt of arbitration materials (without a signed release) and consideration based upon continued employment, the Court granted JC Penney’s motion to compel Plaintiff Brown to arbitrate his claims under the Company’s mandatory arbitration system.

McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc., 110 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 1997)
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee with carpal-tunnel syndrome was not considered to be an individual with a disability who qualified for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Woodrum v. Lane Bryant The Limited, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 243 (W.D. Ky. 1997)
The Court held that employees and agents are not subject to individual liability under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Chapter 344 or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Effinger v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., 984 F. Supp. 1043 (W.D. Ky. 1997)
In addition to dismissal of Title VII and Kentucky Civil Rights Act claims against a supervisor, the court ruled that defendants could remove the action more than thirty days after filing of the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s deposition testimony.

Ahearn v. Audubon Regional Medical Center, 937 F. Supp. 617 (W.D. Ky. 1996)
Federal judge rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s request for an injunction under 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board sought an order requiring the hospital to rescind a major restructuring of its operations.

Shoney's, Inc. v. Lewis, 875 S.W.2d 514 (Ky. Sup. Ct. 1994)
This decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court established the rule in Kentucky that an employee's attorney cannot contact management employees regarding potential employment litigation after the attorney is advised that the employer is represented by counsel.

Lowry v. Clark, 843 F. Supp. 228 (E.D. Ky. 1994)
In a case of first impression, the court ruled that there was no individual liability for supervisors under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

MHC, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 685 F. Supp. 1370 (E.D. Ky. 1988)
The federal district court decision addressed the question of whether a RICO action is preempted by the NLRA when the alleged predicate acts can be classified as unfair labor practices. The court found that the LMRA did not preempt the civil RICO claim against the union in a case involving strike violence.

Conley v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp., 606 F. Supp. 235 (W.D. Ky. 1985)
The federal district court decision refused to hold an employer liable under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act or 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on the plaintiff's failure to make a prima facie case of race discrimination or retaliation, and failure to show that her employer's articulated reason for her dismissal was pretext. The court ultimately held the plaintiff liable for the defendant's attorneys' fees in Conley v. KFC Corporation, 622 F. Supp. 767 (W.D. Ky. 1985).