Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Little v. Whitehousegreen1 sentence2023Even with an expansive interpretation of the issues listed, Appellants did not raise the KCRA issue in their Prehearing Statement. -8- Additionally, the circuit court did not address this issue below. “[A] party is not entitled to raise an error on appeal if he has not called the error to the attention of the trial court and given that court an opportunity to correct it.” Little v. Whitehouse, 384 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Ky. 1964) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Marilyn H. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New 2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New | 1 | 1 |
Banker v. University of Louisville Athletic Ass'ngreen2 sentences2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New 2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New | 1 | 1 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2016See also Gibson v. Finish Line, Inc. of Delaware, 261 F.Supp.2d 785, 789-90 (W.D.Ky. 2003) (To establish a KCRA violation, plaintiff must prove the same elements required for a prima facie discrimination claim under Title VII; therefore, Kentucky courts often look to interpretation of federal law for guidance in applying the KCRA). . 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). . 2016See also Gibson v. Finish Line, Inc. of Delaware, 261 F.Supp.2d 785, 789-90 (W.D.Ky. 2003) (To establish a KCRA violation, plaintiff must prove the same elements required for a prima facie discrimination claim under Title VII; therefore, Kentucky courts often look to interpretation of federal law for guidance in applying the KCRA). . 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). . | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. FINISH LINE INC. OF DELAWAREgreen2 sentences2016See also Gibson v. Finish Line, Inc. of Delaware, 261 F.Supp.2d 785, 789-90 (W.D.Ky. 2003) (To establish a KCRA violation, plaintiff must prove the same elements required for a prima facie discrimination claim under Title VII; therefore, Kentucky courts often look to interpretation of federal law for guidance in applying the KCRA). . 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). . 2016See also Gibson v. Finish Line, Inc. of Delaware, 261 F.Supp.2d 785, 789-90 (W.D.Ky. 2003) (To establish a KCRA violation, plaintiff must prove the same elements required for a prima facie discrimination claim under Title VII; therefore, Kentucky courts often look to interpretation of federal law for guidance in applying the KCRA). . 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Noel v. Elk Brand Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2021Importantly, we encounter no language in the KCRA suggesting legislative intent to protect 25 Noel, 53 S.W.3d at 106 . (“Since the purpose of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act with respect to individuals with disabilities is to adopt the policies of the ADA at the state level and safeguard those individuals from discrimination, the interpretations of the ADA which place the initial burden of proposing reasonable accommodations on the employee should also apply to KRS 344.030(1).”) 26 Id. 27Id. at 105–06. (“A question that arises is whether KRS 344.030(1), which defines a ‘qualified person with a d 2021Importantly, we encounter no language in the KCRA suggesting legislative intent to protect 25 Noel, 53 S.W.3d at 106 . (“Since the purpose of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act with respect to individuals with disabilities is to adopt the policies of the ADA at the state level and safeguard those individuals from discrimination, the interpretations of the ADA which place the initial burden of proposing reasonable accommodations on the employee should also apply to KRS 344.030(1).”) 26 Id. 27Id. at 105–06. (“A question that arises is whether KRS 344.030(1), which defines a ‘qualified person with a d | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ammerman v. Bd. of Educ., Nicholas County
green
2 sentences2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New 2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New 2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Consolidated Gold Fields Plc v. Minorco
green
2 sentences2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New 2017To make a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must establish (1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was disadvantaged by an act of her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the activity engaged in and the employer’s treatment of her.18 If the plaintiff is able to put forth a prima facie 14 Mazzella v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., 642 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 15 Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000} 16 Id. (quoting l/Vzlliams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999). 17 Carrero v. New | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010While the majority insists the combined damage instructions criticized in Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781 (Ky.2004), are distinguishable, and it was perhaps easier to identify specific distinct acts underlying the three tort claims in that case, the principle remains pertinent and, in my view, precludes upholding an award pursuant to the erroneous combined instruction. 2010While the majority insists the combined damage instructions criticized in Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781 (Ky.2004), are distinguishable, and it was perhaps easier to identify specific distinct acts underlying the three tort claims in that case, the principle remains pertinent and, in my view, precludes upholding an award pursuant to the erroneous combined instruction. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
American General Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Hall
green
2 sentences2009Furthermore, the jury concluded that McDonald’s failed to “exercise! ] reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior[.]” Id. *288 The fact that Summers and Dockery were not found liable for negligence does not prohibit the same acts from serving as the basis of a KCRA claim. 2009Furthermore, the jury concluded that McDonald’s failed to “exercise! ] reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior[.]” Id. *288 The fact that Summers and Dockery were not found liable for negligence does not prohibit the same acts from serving as the basis of a KCRA claim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.