DIRECT EFFINGER WALLPAPER
The purpose of the Act is properly fulfilled by holding employers ultimately responsible for the discriminatory acts of their employees and agents. In other words, he supervised Effinger’s direct supervisor. From November, until June 2, , Effinger received temporary disability benefits. Effinger also stated that she was offended because she believed that Collins “thought” she was a lesbian. She admitted that on at least one occasion, she responded to Collins’ comment, “in a laughing tone,” by telling him that her daughter “wasn’t his type.
|License:||For Personal Use Only|
|iPhone 5, 5S resolutions||640×1136|
|iPhone 6, 6S resolutions||750×1334|
|iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus resolutions||1080×1920|
|Android Mobiles HD resolutions||360×640, 540×960, 720×1280|
|Android Mobiles Full HD resolutions||1080×1920|
|Mobiles HD resolutions||480×800, 768×1280|
|Mobiles QHD, iPhone X resolutions||1440×2560|
|HD resolutions||1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, 1920×1080, 2560×1440, Original|
Moreover, the Kentucky Supreme Court has implicitly addressed the issue of whether an employee’s agent can be individually liable as an employer under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
Effinger v. Philip Morris, Inc., F. Supp. (W.D. Ky. ) :: Justia
He would make up stuff every day. As provided in 28 U. Background Patricia Effinger worked at Philip Morris as an hourly employee from September 9, to November 7, For the reasons stated, the motions for summary judgment filed by Lamont Collins and Ron Leach will be granted.
Effinger argued that Effinger’s deposition was not “other paper” within the meaning of 28 U. Rather, similar digect Title VII, the Kentucky Act “is properly fulfilled by holding employers ultimately responsible for the discriminatory acts of their employees and agents.
Robert F. Effinger
Chapterprohibits employers from discriminating against any individual on the basis of sex. She further testified in her deposition that she did not leave work due to Leach’s conduct. However, once she told him that this offended her, he stopped. Because she qualified for Social Security Disability benefits, she was entitled to long-term disability leave from Philip Morris as well. Effinger also claimed that Lamont Collins sexually harassed her and engaged in conduct creating a cause of action for the tort of outrage.
Effinger v. Philip Morris, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1043 (W.D. Ky. 1997)
During this time, Leach was the Group Supervisor for floor She also stated that she believed Collins thought she was a lesbian. In Seitz, the Kentucky Supreme Court explained:. In Seitz, the Kentucky Supreme Court explained: Collins’ motion for summary judgment will be granted on this claim as well. It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious Assuming that Effinger’s assertions are true, Collins’ conduct is inappropriate for a workplace setting.
The purpose of the Act is properly fulfilled by holding employers ultimately responsible for the discriminatory acts of their employees and direcy.
After Effinger was transferred from floorit appears that her contact with Leach ceased. Answering this question in the negative, the Winston Court reasoned: In other words, the second paragraph of 28 U. If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant Efffinger, Effinger stated in her deposition that the alleged conduct by Leach which forms the basis of her claims occurred while she was assigned to floor at Philip Morris.
Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Removal of Action In her motion to remand, Effinger argued that Philip Morris failed to timely remove the present suit from Jefferson Circuit Court to this court. Within thirty days of her deposition, Philip Morris filed the notice of removal. In her deposition, Effinger stated that Collins would state that if he dlrect get his “hands on your [Effinger’s adult] daughter, I’m going to oomph” and then he made several pelvic thrusts.
To state a cause of action for the tort of outrage under Kentucky law, a plaintiff must show: Salt Lake County, 1 F. Windsor Park Nursing Home, Inc. She based this assumption on the fact that Effniger asked her if she knew whether another female effunger was a lesbian. Ron Leach The five-year statute of limitation outlined in K. Collins’ conduct is diirect the type of intentional conduct encompassed in effinget tort of outrage. Because Effinger’s deposition was an “other paper” within the meaning of 28 U.
In her motion to remand, Effinger argued that Philip Morris failed to timely remove the present suit from Jefferson Circuit Court to this court.