Board of Education of Fayette County v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879

Public school teacher Richards was suspended for an extended period based on a Tribunal finding of 'conduct unbecoming a teacher' under KRS 161.790(l)(b).
Tribunal found Richards restrained a student during a hallway incident; the student claimed choking though no harm occurred.
Circuit court reversed the Tribunal, and Court of Appeals affirmed that Richards’ conduct did not constitute conduct unbecoming.
The Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to interpret the meaning of 'conduct unbecoming a teacher' and review Tribunal authority.
Court holds that Tribunal cannot define the statute’s meaning; court must interpret the statute de novo and apply it to the facts.
Court remands to enter an order dismissing the charge and to pay Richards full salary for the suspension period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the meaning of conduct unbecoming a teacher?	Richards argues it requires more than poor judgment and not moral fault.	Tribunal defines conduct unbecoming by its own interpretation within KRS 161.790(l)(b).	Statutory meaning is plain: unsuitable, indecorous, or improper conduct, not limited to immorality.
May the court defer to the Tribunal on legal interpretation of conduct unbecoming?	Court should accept Tribunal’s interpretation of the statute as controlling on law.	Court should defer only on fact-finding; legal interpretation is a judicial function.	Courts interpret statute de novo; Tribunal cannot define the statute’s meaning.
Should the case be remanded for further factual findings based on a new statutory interpretation?	Remand is appropriate to let Tribunal apply the defined standard to facts.	No remand; the Tribunal already found facts, and the charge should be dismissed.	Remand to dismiss the charge; no further adjudication necessary.

Fankhauser v. Cobb, 163 S.W.3d 389 (Ky. 2005) (Tribunal to determine facts and sanction; deference on weight of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Jewish Hospital Healthcare Services, Inc., 932 S.W.2d 388 (Ky. App. 1996) (courts may scrutinize agency statutory constructions)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 689 S.W.2d 14 (Ky. 1985) (courts not bound to agency interpretation in statutory construction)
Gover v. Stovall, 237 Ky. 172, 35 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. 1931) (historical delegation of misconduct definition; not controlling here)
McCord v. Pineway Farms, 569 S.W.2d 690 (Ky. App. 1978) (statutory interpretation duty of courts; avoid legislative replacement by agency)
Osborne v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 645 (Ky. 2006) (interpretation of statutes is a proper judicial function)