Court Opinion

ID: 9630622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:15:55.959384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:36.085673
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with respect to Appellant’s claim of retaliation. In my view, Appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima, facie case.
The pertinent facts of this case deal with the Housing Authority’s actions following Brooks’ initiation of a discrimination suit. Brooks alleged that during a meeting with a supervisor she was “slapped at” by that supervisor but without physical contact. Following the meeting, she was required to request permission from her immediate supervisor to leave her desk for any reason. Additionally, Brooks claimed that her breaks were arbitrarily shortened from fifteen to ten minutes. Finally, she alleged that the Housing Authority unfairly required her to work in a warehouse, even though she had previously worked there prior to her discrimination suit.
The Court of Appeals was correct in determining that Brooks’ complaints regarding the activities of the Housing Authority “do not rise to the level of adverse employment action.” It also correctly held that “Brooks had failed to make a prima facie showing of retaliation.”
The majority is correct that there is no meaningful distinction between KRS 342.280 and its federal counterpart 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. Since Kentucky law and federal law are substantially similar, it follows that we may rely on federal case law for guidance in applying the Kentucky Act.1
In Hollins v. Atlantic Company, Inc.,2 an employment discrimination and retaliation case, the employer enforced its personal grooming policy on an employee by requiring her to receive permission for hairstyle changes. The Hollins court explained the requirements for determining whether an employer’s actions constitute an adverse employment action:
[A] materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, *814a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation.3
In Hollins, the court held that the employee did not establish a prima facie case and that “lowered performance rating, standing alone” did not result in an adequate showing for an adverse employment action.4 Thus, an employer must engage in a substantial activity that has a materially adverse effect on employment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit properly described the standard:
Retaliatory conduct other than discharge or refusal to rehire is thus proscribed by Title VII only if it alters the employee’s “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” deprives him or her of “employment opportunities,” or “adversely affect[s] his [or her] status as an employee.” It follows that “not everything that makes an employee unhappy” qualifies as retaliation, for “[o]therwise, minor and even trivial employment action that ‘an irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee did not like would form the basis of a discrimination suit.’ ”5
Brooks’ supervisor, the offender, engaged in rude, mean-spirited, generally obnoxious conduct toward her. Perhaps his conduct was such as to merit employment sanctions against him. However, his bad conduct did not meet the legal standards described hereinabove. Brooks was not subjected to materially adverse changes in her employment as required by prevailing law. The Robinson court warned that too broad an interpretation of Title VII could lead to a circumstance where “irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee[s]” could too easily state a claim for discrimination or retaliation based on minor irritants that inevitably occur in the workplace. I fear this Court has set the bar so low that employers will be severely limited in their ability to manage their businesses for fear of claims such as this.
COOPER and GRAVES, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.

. See Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Ky., 840 S.W.2d 814 (1992).

. 188 F.3d 652 (6th Cir.1999).

. Id. at 662 (quoting Crady v. Liberty Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Indiana, 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir.1993)).

. Id.

. Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1300 (3rd Cir.1997) (citations omitted).