Sunday, August 23, 2009

Another Day, Another Lawsuit

Another employee has filed a lawsuit against UK, and as is often the case with UK, has seen the lawsuit dismissed.

UK gets sued a lot, especially by hospital patients. And former basketball coaches. But a lot of employees and former employees sue UK, too, for a variety of reasons. Discrimination based on race or gender or age or religious beliefs. Sexual harassment. Hostile work environment. Wrongful termination. And so on.

It's true that some of these employee lawsuits are frivolous, but we're willing to bet that most of them are legitimate and are not brought about easily. There is a rumor that UK has nearly all the attorneys in the region on retainer -- cutting off access to employees right from the start. If the employee is still working, they face all manner of silent subtle harassments -- stolen brown bag lunches, time cards that get read "wrong," penalties for taking literally six seconds more than the legally mandated break time, not being allowed breaks at all, fewer hours, rumors about their character.

Going to HR for such "little" things is a waste of time, as hundreds of employees already know. (Let's be clear about HR. UK HR exists to protect the university's interests. Employees come in a far second. Employees can have all the wellness benefits they can handle, but only because UK has decided those benefits are in its best interest as an organization.)

In Cowan's case, UK maintains it addressed the problem as soon as supervisors were aware of the situation. Which leaves us wondering how long and how many complaints it took to bring the problem to the supervisors' attention.

To Cowan and all the other folks suing UK for legitimate reasons: We believe you and we hope you win. We work at UK, and we understand what you're up against.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Employees and others sue UK Administration, not UK, which is us.

Anonymous said...

Is it true that UK is in negoations with LFUC goverment to gain control of many public streets on main campus to stop tobacco use which is scheduled to begin in November? How can UK control public property that is paid for by public tax funds? Is UK over stepping there authority? Can somone confirm?

Anonymous said...

I really dont think ( i have nothing to back it up like facts) that the city government would give up such property to the University just because of a smoking ban.