Kansas lawmakers agree to resolve family-leave retaliation lawsuit for $45,000
The State Finance Council in Kansas, comprised of the governor and House and Senate leadership, voted to approve a $45,000 payment to settle a lawsuit filed by a former employee of the Kansas Department for Children and Families who was fired and alleged retaliation by DCF when he sought to make use of the Family and Medical Leave Act. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — Gov. Laura Kelly and leaders of the Kansas Legislature approved the $45,000 settlement of a lawsuit filed by a former employee of the Kansas Department for Children and Families who was fired after requesting expansion of medical leave to care for a relative.
Former DCF employee Shayne Watson filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging the state agency interfered with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and was terminated in retaliation for insisting on altering his leave from intermittent to continuous.
Watson had been granted intermittent leave by DCF to care for a relative with dementia from 2019 to 2022, but was fired within two weeks of requesting his FMLA status be changed to continuous.
Court documents show DCF attorney Marc Altenbernt argued the agency didn't retaliate against Watson and had immunity from the lawsuit. The record also indicated DCF asserted Watson's work performance was lackluster and that he deviated from a telework agreement. In addition, documents show DCF claimed Watson was combative during a personnel meeting prior to the firing.
Watson was terminated by the state agency in September 2022. He filed a federal lawsuit seeking in excess of $75,000.
In January, U.S. District Court Judge Holly Teeter granted summary judgment to DCF on Watson's claim the agency interfered with his family-leave rights, but the judge allowed the retaliation claim to move forward. In February, a trial date was set on the retaliation portion of the complaint.
In April, the case was closed following negotiations on a settlement between attorneys representing DCF and Watson.
The State Finance Council, which includes the governor as well as Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, voted 7-0 to resolve the case with the $45,000 payment to Watson.
Watson was hired by DCF in 2018 and worked as a career navigator assigned the help adults without dependent children obtain employment while receiving government benefits.
Meanwhile, the State Finance Council voted to reject a proposed settlement in the case of Link v. State of Kansas. Neither details of the lawsuit nor the settlement amount recommended by the Kansas attorney general's office were revealed by council members during the public portion of this week's meeting.
When council members emerged from executive session, the governor requested a motion to accept the settlement. None of the council members present said anything until Senate President Ty Masterson of Andover said the silence reflected opposition to the deal.
'I think you're finding nobody wants to make the motion,' Masterson said.
'Well,' Kelly said, 'we could make the motion and vote it down if that is what everybody is feeling.'
Masterson made the motion to consider the settlement and voted for approval along with House Minority Leader Chris Croft, R-Overland Park. The governor and the remainder of Republicans and Democrats on the council present at the meeting voted against the deal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
33 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Unsubstantiated 'chemtrail' conspiracy theories lead to legislation proposed in US statehouses
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — As Louisiana Rep. Kimberly Landry Coates stood before her colleagues in the state's Legislature she warned that the bill she was presenting might 'seem strange' or even crazy. Some lawmakers laughed with disbelief and others listened intently, as Coates described situations that are often noted in discussions of 'chemtrails' — a decades-old conspiracy theory that posits the white lines left behind by aircraft in the sky are releasing chemicals for any number of reasons, some of them nefarious. As she urged lawmakers to ban the unsubstantiated practice, she told skeptics to 'start looking up' at the sky. 'I'm really worried about what is going on above us and what is happening, and we as Louisiana citizens did not give anyone the right to do this above us,' the Republican said. Louisiana is the latest state taking inspiration from a wide-ranging conspiratorial narrative, mixing it with facts, to create legislation. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a similar measure into law last year and one in Florida has passed both the House and the Senate. More than a dozen other states, from New York to Arizona, have introduced their own legislation. Such bills being crafted is indicative of how misinformation is moving beyond the online world and into public policy. Elevating unsubstantiated theories or outright falsehoods into the legislative arena not only erodes democratic processes, according to experts, it provides credibility where there is none and takes away resources from actual issues that need to be addressed. 'Every bill like this is kind of symbolic, or is introduced to appease a very vocal group, but it can still cause real harm by signaling that these conspiracies deserve this level of legal attention,' said Donnell Probst, interim executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. Louisiana's bill, which is awaiting Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's signature, prohibits anyone from 'intentionally' injecting, releasing, applying or dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere with the purpose of affecting the 'temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' It also requires the Department of Environmental Quality to collect reports from anyone who believes they have observed such activities. While some lawmakers have targeted real weather modification techniques that are not widespread or still in their infancy, others have pointed to dubious evidence to support legislation. Discussion about weather control and banning 'chemtrails' has been hoisted into the spotlight by high-profile political officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Recently, Marla Maples, the ex-wife of President Donald Trump, spoke in support of Florida's legislation. She said she was motivated to 'start digging' after seeing a rise in Alzheimer's. Asked jokingly by a Democratic state senator if she knew anyone in the federal government who could help on the issue, Maples smiled and said, 'I sure do.' Chemtrails vs. contrails Chemtrail conspiracy theories, which have been widely debunked and include a myriad of claims, are not new. The publication of a 1996 Air Force report on the possible future benefits of weather modification is often cited as an early driver of the narrative. Some say that evidence of the claims is happening right before the publics' eyes, alleging that the white streaks stretching behind aircrafts reveal chemicals being spread in the air, for everything from climate manipulation to mind control. Ken Leppert, an associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Louisiana Monroe, said the streaks are actually primarily composed of water and that there is 'no malicious intent behind' the thin clouds. He says the streaks are formed as exhaust is emitted from aircrafts, when the humidity is high and air temperature is low, and that ship engines produce the same phenomenon. A fact sheet about contrails, published by multiple government agencies including NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency, explains that the streaks left behind by planes do not pose health risks to humans. However, the trails, which have been produced since the earliest days of jet aviation, do impact the cloudiness of Earth's atmosphere and can therefore affect atmospheric temperature and climate. Scientists have overwhelmingly agreed that data or evidence cited as proof of chemtrails 'could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols,' according to a 2016 survey published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. In the survey of 77 chemists and geochemists, 76 said they were not aware of evidence proving the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program. 'It's pure myth and conspiracy,' Leppert said. Cloud seeding While many of the arguments lawmakers have used to support the chemtrails narrative are not based in fact, others misrepresent actual scientific endeavors, such as cloud seeding; a process by which an artificial material — usually silver iodide — is used to induce precipitation or to clear fog. 'It's maybe really weak control of the weather, but it's not like we're going to move this cloud here, move this hurricane here, or anything like that,' Leppert said. Parker Cardwell, an employee of a California-based cloud seeding company called Rainmaker, testified before lawmakers in Louisiana and asked that an amendment be made to the legislation to avoid impacts to the industry. The practice is an imprecise undertaking with mixed results that isn't widely used, especially in Louisiana, which has significant natural rainfall. According to Louisiana's Department of Agriculture and Forestry, a cloud seeding permit or license has never been issued in the state. Geoengineering While presenting Louisiana's bill last week, Coates said her research found charts and graphics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on spraying the air with heavy metals to reflect sunlight back into space to cool the Earth. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy, with support from NOAA, to develop an initial governance framework and research plan related to solar radiation modification, or SRM. A resulting report, which Coates holds up in the House session, focuses on possible future actions and does not reflect decisions that had already been made. SRM 'refers to deliberate, large-scale actions intended to decrease global average surface temperatures by increasing the reflection of sunlight away from the Earth,' according to NOAA. It is a type of geoengineering. Research into the viability of many methods and potential unintended consequences is ongoing, but none have actually been deployed. Taking focus In recent years, misinformation and conspiratorial narratives have become more common during the debates and committee testimonies that are a part of Louisiana's lawmaking process. And while legislators say Louisiana's new bill doesn't really have teeth, opponents say it still takes away time and focus from important work and more pressing topics. State Rep. Denise Marcelle, a Democrat who opposed Louisiana's bill, pointed to other issues ailing the state, which has some of the highest incarceration, poverty, crime, and maternal mortality rates. 'I just feel like we owe the people of Louisiana much more than to be talking about things that I don't see and that aren't real,' she said. ___ Associated Press writers Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida, and Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota, contributed to this story.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Rand Paul slams Graham's push for Russian sanctions as ‘self-defeating economic warfare'
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) push for Russian sanctions, calling his bill 'self-defeating economic warfare.' Graham's sanctions bill on Russia would impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from any country that buys Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products. The legislation has more than 80 co-sponsors in the Senate, potentially making it veto-proof. But GOP senators are waiting on President Trump to move ahead with the legislation, and Trump said this week he hasn't even looked at it. Trump has also said he doesn't want to undermine the chances of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Paul, in a series of posts on X on Saturday, said the bill would be ineffective and backfire against efforts to achieve peace, as the war between Russia and Ukraine continues in its fourth year. 'The Graham bill would derail President Trump's efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. Self-defeating economic warfare is no way to achieve peace,' Paul said on X. 'This bill won't force China or India to change behavior, but it will impose an effective embargo on ourselves that will hurt American families,' he said. Paul also argued that the bill could hurt U.S. allies and raise gas prices. 'The Graham bill could raise tariffs on allies like Israel and Taiwan to 500 percent and potentially even higher. Why are we punishing our friends while pretending it'll hold Russia accountable? This isn't strategy—it's economic self-sabotage,' he wrote. 'Cutting off Russian oil takes a major source of supply off the market, resulting in higher gas prices. Analysts warned that a U.S. ban on Russian oil could cause prices to hit $160–$200 a barrel. That's $5+ gas at the pump,' he said. Graham, this past week, sought to address some of those concerns by proposing a carveout for his bill to exempt countries that aid in Ukraine's defense. The carveout could help insulate countries in Europe that still import Russian gas and have provided military support for Ukraine, as well as other U.S. partners that have straddled the line between maintaining ties with Moscow and providing assistance to Kyiv. 'A lot of countries still buy Russian oil and gas but less. Some European countries still have relationships with Russia, but they've been very helpful to Ukraine. So I want to carve them out,' Graham told reporters Wednesday. 'I tell China, if you don't want to have a 500 percent tariff, help Ukraine.'
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Soaking the rich — as Mamdani and other lefties want —won't pay for a supersized NYC gov't
Mayoral candidate and Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani vaulted into contention in this month's Democratic primary by pledging to supersize city government. 'He knows exactly how to pay for it, too,' his campaign brags. Does he, though? Mamdani's platform — free child care, more public housing and an end to bus fares or CUNY tuition, just to name a few — wouldn't come cheap. Advertisement New Yorkers can have all of it, he promises, for the bargain-basement price of $10 billion in new revenues — less than a tenth of the current city budget. Mamdani is very much lowballing his agenda's price tag. Yet even if he weren't, he still wouldn't likely be able to deliver. Advertisement Most of his plans rely on a pair of tax hikes on corporations and millionaire earners, totaling $9 billion. He doesn't have authority to implement either. Should his cocktail of social-media savvy and socialism land him in Gracie Mansion, he'd need Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers to OK these 'revenue raisers.' New York's local governments, the city included, can't set their own personal or business income-tax rates. Between the city's 1975 brush with insolvency, and its more recent fiscal profligacy, that's understandable. Here's another good reason: Candidates sometimes don't understand themselves how taxes work — and Mamdani is clearly one of them. Advertisement Mamdani regularly compares the top state corporate tax rates of New York (7.25%) and New Jersey (11.5%). These are essentially the state tax rates on businesses profits related to their activity in a state. Mamdani says he'd 'match' New Jersey's rate. On the one hand, that would be a windfall—for Albany, which collects the state corporate tax, not for New York City, where most is generated. Yet Mamdani doesn't get that New York City's biggest firms already pay far more than they would on the other side of the Hudson. Before anyone cuts a check to Albany, city businesses pay the Business Corporation Tax, at least 6.5% for small businesses and as much as 9%. On their remaining income, companies pay the state Corporation Franchise Tax, plus a surcharge to support the MTA. Advertisement All-in, the top state-local rate for businesses in the city is generally just over 17.4%. For them, 'matching' New Jersey would be a meaty tax cut. But say Albany implemented Mamdani's $5 billion hike (after all, lawmakers pushed unsuccessfully for a smaller corporate tax increase this year). That would push the top combined corporate tax rate to a stratospheric 22%. Nor would the proceeds flow automatically to the five boroughs. It would still be 'Albany's' money. Mamdani would need to persuade lawmakers and the governor to spend the proceeds his way. He may find his friends in Albany aren't so friendly when money's involved. Compare that to North Carolina, which is phasing out its corporate tax. It's no coincidence that state has been scooping up new corporate headquarters. Or Pennsylvania, which is in the process of reducing its top corporate rate from 10% percent in 2022, to 8% this year, toward the goal of 5% in 2031. Soak-the-rich rhetoric aside, even Albany can't ignore the explosion of remote work and the danger of pushing major employers to shift operations or direct expansions elsewhere. Advertisement This isn't the only facet of tax policy Mamdani doesn't get. His other big tax increase would have city residents with incomes over $1 million pay the city an extra 2% of their earnings (on top of their Medicare, Social Security, paid family leave and state and federal income taxes). A growing body of data show people with high incomes and residences in other states limit their time in New York to reduce their exposure to the bigger bite taken by state taxes. Here's yet another wrinkle: New York taxes people on their activity in the state, even if they don't live here. By contrast, since 1999, the city levies an income tax only on its residents — and, as with the business taxes, only with Albany's blessing. Advertisement Plenty of people tolerate this extra tax, which tops out at just under 3.9%. But a two-point jump would measurably affect behavior. A couple making $1 million would avoid about $53,000 in city taxes by moving to Westchester or Nassau — up considerably from the $35,000 they would save now. That's effectively an $18,000 bonus for every millionaire earner who decamps for the 'burbs. Advertisement If Mamdani prevails, his followers will abruptly encounter fiscal realities they are ill-equipped to manage — mainly because they've been told to ignore them. Ken Girardin is a fellow of the Manhattan Institute.
