388 P.3d 122
Kan. Ct. App.2016Background
- Hill, a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper, challenged his 2011 dismissal for insubordination; KCSB amended the dismissal to a 1-year suspension in December 2012.
- Upon Hill’s return in 2012, KHP placed him in Troop E (Finney County) due to severe manpower shortages, despite Hill residing near Troop H; he remained paid and employed with his prior rank/benefits intact.
- Hill sought to be placed back in Troop H and made multiple transfer/relocation requests, which were denied; he filed a May 2013 lawsuit alleging a common-law retaliatory transfer against the State and Garcia.
- The State and Garcia moved to dismiss, arguing KJRA exhaustion, lack of a private action under KCSA, and sovereign immunity under the KTCA; Hill argued KJRA did not apply and that public-policy tort theories could apply.
- The trial court denied the motions to dismiss and granted summary judgment in favor of the State and Garcia; on appeal, the court reversed on sovereign immunity grounds and dismissed Hill’s action, while affirming/denying aspects related to summary judgment.
- This opinion ultimately holds that Hill’s retaliatory job-placement claim is not a valid common-law tort, and that sovereign immunity bars Hill’s action; the trial court’s denial of dismissals was reversed, and the action was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KJRA applies to Hill's claim | Hill argues KJRA does not apply because this is a tort suit, not agency review. | State/Garcia contend Hill collaterally attacks agency action requiring KJRA review and exhaustion. | KJRA does not govern Hill’s public-policy tort claim. |
| Whether Hill may assert a private right of action under KCSA | Hill asserts a public-policy tort exists independent of KCSA language. | State/Garcia argue no private right under KCSA for retaliatory job placement; TLPA limits private rights. | Public-policy tort claim not recognized; no private right under KCSA for retaliatory placement. |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Hill’s claim | KTCA waives immunity when a private person would sue for the same tort, including public-policy retaliation. | KTCA immunity applies; Hill seeks a non-recognized tort not covered by any waiver. | Sovereign immunity bars Hill’s action; KTCA exceptions do not apply. |
| Whether Hill can pursue a common-law retaliatory job placement claim | Brigham extends retaliatory demotion to a broader public-policy retaliatory action, including placement. | Placement in Troop E was a lateral transfer/assignment with no harm; Brigham does not extend to this context. | Retaliatory job placement is not a valid common-law tort. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Evidence shows pretext and retaliation; genuine issues of material fact exist. | Defendants show legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for placement and lack of adverse action/harm. | Summary judgment proper; no genuine issue as to material facts independently precluding judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindenman v. Umscheid, 255 Kan. 610 (1994) (KJRA not exclusive remedy for tort claims against an agency)
- Brigham v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 262 Kan. 12 (1997) (retaliatory demotion recognized as a tort; Brigham framework for pretext analysis)
- Connelly v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 271 Kan. 944 (2001) (KCSA as exclusive remedy for whistleblower retaliation; distinguishes from public-policy torts)
- Campbell v. Husky Hogs, 292 Kan. 224 (2011) (public policy exceptions to at-will employment; framework for public policy analysis)
- Goolsby v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., No official reporter (2014) (TLPA does not create private right of action for public policy retaliation; clarifies private vs public-law theories)