Court Opinion

ID: 9778722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:17:17.937599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.776878
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Justice,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the district and local lodges are distinct and separate employers so as to prevent aggregating the number of their employees to satisfy the statutory requirement. From the evidence and as revealed in the majority opinion, the various entities had extensive common management and financial control, all were governed by a single constitution, funds flowed freely from one to the other, all employees were eligible to participate in a single pension plan, and in some instances, employee salary costs were shared. In my view, this is ample to satisfy the four-part test enunciated in Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting Co., 560 F.2d 389 (8th Cir.1977), and Evans v. McDonald’s Corp., 936 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir.1991), decisions relied upon by the majority.
Rather than being separate and distinct as the majority contends, the relationship of the appellees more nearly resembles divisions within a corporation. The statute at issue here is remedial and states as its purpose “To provide for execution within the state of the policies embodied in the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended....” It further provides as its purpose “To safeguard all individuals within the state from discrimination because of ... sex_” KRS 344.020(l)(a) and (b). The statute should be liberally construed to accomplish its stated purpose.
Except as stated herein, I concur with the majority opinion.
LEIBSON and STUMBO, JJ., join in this opinion.