Rafael Cruz v. Norton Healthcare, Inc, et al.

Louisville, Kentucky employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a civil rights violation theory.

In 2002, Cruz, a physician, was employed by Norton to work parttime and as-needed at its various Immediate Care Centers ("ICC") in Kentucky and Indiana, where Cruz is a resident. Initially, Cruz worked two to four 12-hour shifts weekly. In 2008, Cruz began to experience difficulties with his vision, including intermittent double vision, poor night vision, and fatigue, that he asserts qualify as a medical disability (Norton disputes this characterization as contrary to Kentucky law). In 2012, Cruz contacted Norton's human resources department to obtain a modified schedule, and Norton accommodated his request without requiring medical documentation. As a result, from 2012 to approximately 2017, Cruz worked Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the ICC in Clarksville, Indiana, the closest to his home, or the ICC in downtown Louisville, Kentucky. After 2017, the downtown Louisville ICC closed, and Cruz worked solely at the Clarksville, Indiana location.



In November 2019, Knight, Norton's Director of Operations, met with Cruz to discuss widespread business changes that would necessitate changing his and other ICC providers' work schedules in the new year. An initial amended

schedule had Cruz working alternating 12-hour shifts every Monday and Tuesday in Clarksville with another provider. Citing his disability, Cruz was resistant to the change. At Norton's request, Cruz submitted a letter from his optometrist stating that it was his recommendation that Cruz "[a]void driving at night" and "limit the work day to 9-5 eight hour shifts in order to avoid excessive fatigue and to mostly drive during daylight hours." Norton then proposed the following two-week schedule:



Week 1: Monday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the Clarksville ICC; Tuesday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the Clarksville or Jeffersonville[, Indiana] ICC.



Week 2: Sunday and Monday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the Clarksville ICC.



Ultimately, Cruz did not accept the changed schedule, and he submitted an involuntary resignation on July 31, 2020. The underlying action was filed prior thereto, on March 9, 2020. In his petition, Cruz asserted that, in violation of the KCRA,[1] Norton had discriminated against him on the basis of his

disability, race, and age (his prior shifts having been allegedly reassigned to a younger Caucasian nurse practitioner). Additionally, Cruz claimed that in retaliation for seeking an accommodation Norton had required him to work at the Jeffersonville ICC and assigned him a regular weekend shift, which he had never been subjected to during the course of his lengthy employment, before ultimately removing him from the schedule without notice.[2]



Norton denied the allegations and, on December 8, 2022, it filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion by an Opinion and Order entered May 31, 2023. Therein, the court stated that it was indisputable that during all relevant time periods Cruz was a resident of Indiana, he worked for Norton exclusively in Indiana, and that every event that allegedly caused him harm occurred in Indiana. Accordingly, citing Union Underwear Co. v. Barnhart, 50 S.W.3d 188, 191 (Ky. 2001), the court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Cruz's KCRA claims. The court further held that, in the alternative, the proposed schedule change did not constitute an adverse employment action. This appeal timely followed.



* * *



CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION. The case concerns whether the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA) can be applied to claims of discrimination based on disability, race, and age against an employer, where the claimant, although working for a Kentucky company, performed all his work duties in Indiana. The court also examined whether the claimant's inability to accept a new work schedule proposed by the employer constituted an adverse employment action under the KCRA.



JURISDICTION LAW. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. The case addresses whether Kentucky courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims filed under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act when the events giving rise to the claims occurred entirely out of state, and the claimant resides and works in a neighboring state.



CONTRACT LAW. CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE. The legal issue involves the interpretation and enforceability of a choice of law clause in an employment contract to determine if it requires the application of Kentucky law to employment practices occurring out of state, particularly in the context of Kentucky's Civil Rights protections.



Key Phrases Kentucky Civil Rights Act. Summary judgment. Employment discrimination claims. Subject matter jurisdiction. Choice of law provision.

Affirmed