Mary E. McCann Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Sullivan University System, Inc., D/B/A Sullivan University College of Pharmacy
528 S.W.3d 331
| Ky. | 2017Background
- Mary McCann sued Sullivan University after termination and filed to certify a class under KRS 337.385 (Kentucky wage statute).
- Sullivan previously settled related FLSA claims with the DOL; McCann’s federal FLSA claims were dismissed and state claims remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court.
- Jefferson Circuit Court denied McCann’s CR 23 class-certification motion as a matter of law, relying on dicta from a Court of Appeals opinion suggesting KRS 337.385 does not authorize class actions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding KRS 337.385 is a special statutory proceeding that displaces the Rules of Civil Procedure and does not authorize class actions.
- McCann sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which granted review to decide whether CR 23 applies to KRS 337.385 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KRS 337.385 constitutes a "special statutory proceeding" that displaces the Rules of Civil Procedure | McCann: The statute does not create a self-contained procedural scheme, so it is not a special statutory proceeding | Sullivan: The statute lacks express class-action language and should be treated as a special statutory proceeding displacing CR 23 | Held: KRS 337.385 is not a special statutory proceeding; it does not displace the Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Whether class actions under CR 23 are available for KRS 337.385 claims absent explicit statutory authorization | McCann: After CR 23 adoption, statutes need not restate class authorization; CR 23 governs unless a statute displaces it | Sullivan: Because KRS 337.385 does not explicitly authorize class actions, CR 23 should not apply | Held: CR 23 applies; a statute need not expressly authorize class actions unless it creates a special statutory proceeding that displaces the rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- C.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 330 S.W.3d 83 (Ky. 2011) (definition of special statutory proceeding: "complete within itself")
- Swift & Co. v. Campbell, 360 S.W.2d 213 (Ky. 1962) (statute complete in itself prescribes procedural details)
- Brock v. Saylor, 189 S.W.2d 688 (Ky. 1945) (election contests as special statutory proceedings)
- Western Ky. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Runyon, 410 S.W.3d 113 (Ky. 2013) (administrative appeals as special statutory proceedings)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (class action is exception to usual party-based litigation)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (Federal Rules apply unless Congress expressly provides otherwise)