Experienced, professional representation for you.

Testimonials

M.M. Sevierville, Tennessee

"Katherine is a excellent attorney. She represented me in a legal matter. Katherine not only knows the law but cares about her clients. She kept me informed and explained everything to me in terms I could understand. Katherine also helped my husband and I draw up our wills, living wills and all documents we needed to insure our estate was left exactly the way we wanted. She made sure every detail was taken care of per our wishes. Katherine is an honest, hardworking, knowledgeable attorney. I would highly recommend her!"

Joyce, Knoxville, Tennessee

"I had Mrs. Young take my case and she did an excellent job. We won. Thanks so much."

K.B., Knoxville, Tennessee

"I could not have won without you and thanks for restoring my faith in people and the justice system a few notches."

Steve, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

"Tenacious. That is the best word to describe her. She works very hard for her clients! She worked to make the best of a very complex set of issues, resulting in a settlement for me."

Josh, Knoxville, Tennessee

" Professional, precise and she knows the law. She made the process as pleasant as possible and was on top of things."

Chris, Knoxville, Tennessee

"I first hired attorney Katherine Young to create a will, living will, and durable power of attorney for health care. From the very beginning it was obvious to me that Ms. Young's primary motivation is excellence in practice... providing the very best possible legal advice and assistance to meet her client's needs. At a later time, as the executor of a deceased friend's will and being retired with a lot of time on my hands, I thought I would be able to handle the probate of the estate by myself. When things got too complicated I turned to Katherine Young again. She readily assessed the situation, summed up what remained to be done, and outlined a plan for completion. Her knowledge and experience, combined with her calm and confident demeanor, inspired my trust and I turned everything over to her with total peace of mind. Ms. Young kept me apprised of her progress, kept a detailed record, sent me copies of everything she did, and was very quick to respond to my questions. She is awesome and I would wholeheartedly recommend her to anyone."

Success Stories

Representative Cases

Every case is different, and every client has different needs. One client may prioritize returning to employment; another client may determine it is best to move on to a new employer. Other clients are looking for an amicable resolution without money changing hands, while some clients are determined to recover monetary losses. When you review the cases listed below, remember that no particular result can be guaranteed by any law firm. All cases are fact-specific and the forum, judge, and jury may different significantly from one case to the next. These cases are just a small number of the hundreds of cases Katherine has handled over the years.

Litigation

Your case can vary significantly depending on whether you are in state or federal court. There are different rules for state and federal courts. There are different ways to recover depending on the forum and you can receive different outcomes. An experienced litigator will give you the best opportunity for a favorable outcome, whether that is from litigation or from a settlement during the litigation process.

Administrative Hearings

Administrative hearings are usually guided by very specific rules and regulations. There may be a very tight timeline in order to prepare and present your case. You may only be able to call a limited number of witnesses or ask for limited discovery. It is always preferable to have a lawyer who has worked in the administrative forum before, since the rules are so specific.

A SAMPLE OF CASES

Federal Court Cases

Bearden v. TD Auto Finance, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Client sued on an ERISA violation for discontinuance of a long-term disability claim. The parties resolved the matter before trial.

Bostwick v. Triangle Building Products, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Client installed insulation in housing. Client sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act for wage issues and retaliatory discharge, and under Tennessee common law for breach of the good faith and fair dealing, conversion, and promissory estoppel. The parties reached a confidential settlement.

Bowman v. PHP Companies, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.The defendant employer refused to pay commissions earned and terminated the Plaintiff when he complained.

A jury awarded Plaintiff $219,000 in damages for breach of contract.

Brabson v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Client was a manager with 20 years tenure. Summary judgment was denied to the defendant company in the case based on Section 1981 race discrimination, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The parties resolved the matter before trial.

Gist v. TVA Board of Directors, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Client was a lineman with 27 years of experience. Summary judgment was denied to the defendant company on claims under Title VII for race discrimination and retaliation and on a claim of retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The parties resolved the matter before trial.

Michael v. Windsor Gardens, et al. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. A jury found the defendant employers responsible for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tennessee common law in regard to whistleblowing and for retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff was awarded $250,000 in damages and attorneys' fees and costs of $333,000.

Roberts-Banks v. Family Dollar of Tennessee, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Judgment in the amount of $50,000 was entered for the Plaintiff, who alleged retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Southmayd v. Apria, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. A jury awarded Plaintiff $368,000 for his claims for retaliatory discharge for refusal to participate in an illegality and for age discrimination. Plaintiff was also awarded his attorneys' fees and costs.

State Court Cases

Emerson v. Oak Ridge Research, Inc., et al., Tennessee Court of Appeals (Eastern) Client was awarded $608,764 in damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees after the appeals court upheld her Anderson County jury verdict in this retaliatory discharge and assault and battery case.

Jarnagin et al. v. Moyers, Tennessee Court of Appeals (Eastern). Defendant was entitled to $191,733 in bank accounts left to him by Decedent in this appellate reversal of a decision made after a bench trial in Hamblen County Chancery Court.

Jenkins v. Darby, Hamblen County Chancery Court. Defendant was ordered to pay $65,465 by the Chancery Court for his violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and a breach of contract.

Moyers v. Gibson, Hamblen County Chancery Court. Plaintiff was awarded overtime pay and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, in the amount of $85,126 after a bench trial.

Unemployment Hearings

Jernigan v. Blackberry Farm The decision to deny unemployment benefits was reversed. Claimant was found eligible for unemployment benefits because the employer failed to prove by the weight of the credible evidence that Claimant breached a duty owed to the Employer.

Fisher v. Tranzonic. The decision to deny unemployment benefits was reversed. Claimant was found eligible for unemployment benefits because the employer failed to prove by the weight of credible evidence that Claimant breached a duty owed to her employer by repeating a catch phrase in a funny video.

Searle v. Healthstar. Commissioner's Designee upheld the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. Claimant was found eligible for unemployment benefits because there was no evidence to show the Claimant resigned.

Miller v. Denso Manufacturing. The decision to deny unemployment benefits was reversed. Claimant was found to be eligible for unemployment benefits because the employer failed to provide evidence to establish intentional disregard of the employer's interests.

State Employment

Tennessee Department of Transportation v. Lauderdale. Respondent was reinstated to his position and awarded back pay, back benefits, and attorneys' fees for an improper termination.

Call Today to Discuss Your Problem

All Calls Are Confidential

DISCLAIMER

Additional Information

This website is an advertisement.

Listings of practice areas on this website are not intended to and do not imply a representation of certification of specialization in any area of practice listed. There are organizations providing certificates of specialization in certain practice areas, but Katherine Young does not hold such a certificate of specialization in any area.

Each case has different facts and circumstances. The results obtained by other individuals may have no relationship to results that could be obtained for your situation. You should consult with an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be legal advice. Viewing the content of this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. A telephone call does not create an attorney-client relationship. You are only considered to be a client of this firm with an established attorney-client relationship after you have received and executed a representation agreement.

Please call the office to discuss your situation. Please do not send any confidential information to this office until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.