Mendez v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 357 S.W.3d 534

Mendez, a Dominican-born temporary computer technician, worked at UK under the STEPS program and was an at-will employee subject to university policies.
Sutardjo, Mendez's supervisor, preferred timely completion of work and led to Mendez's March 2006 discharge after a disputed conversation about Danish cartoons and a workload deadline.
Mendez alleged religious discrimination under KRS 344.040; he claimed his termination was tied to religious factors and interactions with Sutardjo, including beliefs about Danish cartoons.
The trial court granted summary judgment on wrongful discharge but denied it on religious discrimination; the case went to trial resulting in a jury verdict for Sutardjo/Board.
Mendez appealed, challenging jury instructions, the lost future damages instruction, and the summary judgment on wrongful discharge; the Board and Sutardjo cross-appealed on related issues.
The appellate court affirmed the Fayette Circuit Court, concluding the jury instructions were adequate, there was no reversible error on damages, and summary judgment on wrongful discharge was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the jury instructions correctly state mixed-motive law under Kentucky law?	Mendez argues instructions used 'substantial and motivating' factor were incorrect.	Board/Sutardjo contend Meyers framework permits this language and is adequate.	Yes; instructions adequate under Meyers framework.
Was the failure to instruct on lost future damages reversible error?	Mendez sought future lost earnings instruction.	No damages issue because no religious-discrimination finding occurred.	Moot; no reversible error.
Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment on wrongful discharge claims?	Discharge violated public policy and constituted wrongful termination.	Public policy claims subsumed under KRS 344.040; no basis for wrongful discharge.	Yes; summary judgment proper.
Are First Amendment and Kentucky Constitution § 1 protections applicable to private employer wrongful discharge claims?	Counts alleged under constitutional provisions support wrongful discharge.	Constitutional protections do not create a claim against private employers for wrongful discharge.	No; not actionable against private employers; Grzyb controls.

Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc., 840 S.W.2d 814 (Ky. 1992) (mixed-motive standard: 'substantial factor' basis for discrimination)
First Property Mgmt. Corp. v. Zarebidaki, 867 S.W.2d 185 (Ky. 1993) (mixed-motive framework in Kentucky context)
Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399 (Ky. 1985) (statutory remedy limits constitutional claims when statute covers the wrong)
Olfice, Inc. v. Wilkey, 173 S.W.3d 226 (Ky. 2005) (bare-bones jury instructions standard; proper law presentation)
Drury v. Spalding, 812 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1991) (prejudicial instruction standard and error review)
Lumpkins ex rel. Lumpkins v. City of Louisville, 157 S.W.3d 601 (Ky. 2005) (jury instructions reviewed as a whole; inform the jury)
Baker v. Campbell County Bd. of Educ., 180 S.W.3d 479 (Ky. App. 2005) (public employee protections and public policy analysis context)
Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399 (Ky. 1985) (statutory and constitutional remedy interplay in wrongful discharge)