Friday, Dec. 16, 2011, Louisville, Ky. – The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights Board of Commissioners met yesterday at Louisville headquarters to rule on discrimination complaints for the Commonwealth.   

The board ruled to accept three conciliation agreements. It ruled to dismiss 32 complaints with findings of no probable cause to evidence that discrimination occurred. It accepted eight case withdrawals where the parties agreed to private settlements after the complaints were made. The board also ruled to accept four complaint withdrawals giving the complainants the right to file a private suit.

Conciliation agreements are negotiated by staff investigators and attorneys. The agreements are similar to settlements. Conciliations do not constitute admission by respondents of any violation of the law.

Conciliation Agreements

Complaint number 854-PA, Karen Aicken versus Riverside Parking Inc., in Louisville, Ky.: Karen  Aicken alleged Riverside Parking discriminated against her based on the protected class of disability in the area of public accommodations, a violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Civil Rights Act. She asserted the self-pay machine at the company’s lot at 728 S. Fourth St. was not accessible to her because she uses a wheelchair and could not reach the machine. Riverside agreed to make wheelchair-accessible this parking lot and all those with the machines among its 77 lots in Louisville and Jefferson County. The commission discovered the machines were situated on cement slabs two or three inches above pavement and out of reach to people in wheelchairs. Before the commission completed investigation, the parties agreed to resolve the complaint with a conciliation agreement. In addition to the modifications the company has now made by placing all the existing machines at ground level and making them accessible to people with disabilities, the company also agreed to make accessible to people with disabilities any new lots it owns in the future. The company agreed to undergo civil rights compliance training and undergo compliance monitoring for three years.

Complaint number 1568-H, Kimberly Bradley versus Park Place Townhomes Ltd., in Prestonsburg, Ky.:  Kimberly Bradley alleged that Park Place Townhomes discriminated against her based on the protected class of sex in the area of housing, a violation of the Kentucky and U.S. Civil Rights acts and the Kentucky and U.S. Fair Housing acts. She asserted the company denied her rental of an apartment at Park Place Apts., 5528 Kentucky Route 114, because she had a Domestic Violence Order against her ex-husband. She alleged the representative told her the company had a policy against renting property to anyone with a Domestic Violence Order or an Emergency Protective Order. Statistics show that women who hold these legal orders vastly outnumber men who do. Therefore, Bradley alleged the respondent’s policy had a disparate impact on women. Investigation resulted in the commission’s preparation to issue a finding of probable cause to believe discrimination occurred. However, before the commission issued the finding, the parties agreed to resolve the complaint with a conciliation agreement. Park Place Townhomes compensated Bradley with $3,000 and affirmed that it is in compliance with civil rights laws. The respondent agreed to inform employees about illegal discrimination in housing including discrimination against current and prospective tenants who hold a Domestic Violent Order or Emergency Protective Order. The respondent agreed to undergo civil rights compliance training and undergo compliance monitoring for three years.

Complaint number 1602-H, Betty J. Grider versus Sue Cook, in Bowling Green, Ky.:  Betty Grider alleged that Sue Cook  discriminated against her based on the protected class of race in the area of housing, a violation of the Kentucky and U.S. Civil Rights acts and their respective Fair Housing acts. Grider claimed Cook misrepresented that an apartment Cook owned at 1650 Roger Street had already been rented after Cook learned Grider’s race. Grider claimed this occurred, despite the fact that Cook continued to advertise the apartment for two weeks. Grider claimed that Cook also offered the apartment to Grider’s brother by telephone without learning his race on the same day she told Grider the apartment was rented. After its investigation, the commission was prepared to issue a finding of probable cause to believe discrimination had taken place. Before the issuance of the finding, the parties agreed to a conciliation agreement. The respondent agreed to compensate Grider in the amount of $4,500. The respondent agreed to comply with civil rights laws and to undergo civil rights compliance training and two years of compliance monitoring.