« October 2013 | Main | December 2013 »
According to the latest information from the U.S. Department of Labor wage theft is a national epidemic: more money in earned wages are stolen each year from working people than is robbed from gas stations, banks and convenience stores put together. The wage theft comes in two forms: (1) overtime that is earned but not paid; or, (2) straight wages that are simply not paid.
The Huffington Post reports: L0w-Wage Workers Are Robbed More Than Banks, Gas Stations and Convenience Stores Combined.
| | |
| | |
In a decision exemplifying how determined is the Sixth Circuit to assure that the federal courthouse doors are closed to individuals no matter their claim, it has ruled that Kentucky Supreme Court ethics rules for lawyers DO NOT represent or establish Kentucky public policy. This appalling decision came in the case of Gadladge v. Winters & York, No. 12-5401 (October 24, 2013).
Gadladge, an attorney, was employed by Winters & York law firm. He claimed that he was fired because he refused to follow the firm's policy of routinely referring personal injury clients to a Florida chiropractor, Dr. Gary Kompothecras, which Gadladge asserted was a quid-pro-quo arrangement. Gadladge alleged that this quid-pro-quo arrangement violated conflict of interest rules established by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Gadladge's claim was for wrongful discharge. A wrongful discharge claim arises when, among other things, an employee is fired for refusing to violate a law or rule representing public policy in the course of his employment. Gadladge's claim was that he refused to violate a Supreme Court rule in the course of his employment with Winters & York and, as a result, he was fired.
Although two Kentucky circuit court decisions directly supported his Gadladge's claim, the district court dismissed the case on a Rule 12 motion. The Sixth Circuit in a per curiam opinion joined by Judges Ralph Guy and Martha Daughtrey affirmed. The Sixth Circuit ruled that based on all available data the Kentucky Supreme Court, if presented with the question, would rule that the rules it promulgates for lawyers do not represent public policy and should not be considered as anything like rules of law.
Judge Helene White dissented, noting that the majority's misguided ruling was contrary not only to two Kentucky circuit court decisions but also one by the Sixth Circuit itself, Martello v. Santana, 713 F3d 309 (6th Cir. 2013).
About the only good thing about this decision is that the Sixth Circuit did not designate it for precedential value. It is astounding that the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Kentucky Supreme Court would rule that its rules for lawyers did not represent public policy.
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
| | |
| | |
