617 S.W.3d 339
Ky.2021Background
- Michael Barnett was hired by Central Kentucky Hauling (CKH) in 2011; his wife suffered from cystic fibrosis and required a double lung transplant in 2014.
- Barnett took leave to care for his wife; supervisors later confronted him about a disparaging-rumor and mentioned his time off.
- CKH terminated Barnett at the end of 2014, citing lack of work; Barnett believed a supervisor wanted him gone because of his caregiving for his disabled wife.
- Barnett sued under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA), alleging associational disability discrimination (discharge because he associated with a person with a disability).
- CKH moved to dismiss under CR 12.02(f), arguing the KCRA does not recognize associational-discrimination claims; the trial court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kentucky Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the KCRA bars employer action based on the disability of someone with whom the employee associates, and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the KCRA prohibits firing an employee because of the disability of someone the employee associates with | Barnett: KCRA's broad language protecting “individual with an impairment” should cover associates of disabled persons | CKH: KCRA protects only individuals who themselves meet the statutory disability definitions, not associates | Court: KCRA does not create a cause of action for associational discrimination; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether federal ADA or prior KCRA precedent requires extending KCRA to cover associational claims | Barnett: ADA expressly covers associational discrimination; Asbury Univ. v. Powell supports construing KCRA to vindicate similar protections | CKH: KCRA’s plain text is clear; Powell concerned retaliation and did not expand substantive coverage; legislature omitted associational protection | Court: Declines to extend KCRA; Powell distinguished and ADA cannot expand clear state statutory text |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010) (standards for CR 12.02(f) dismissal reviewed de novo)
- Traveler’s Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong, 565 S.W.3d 550 (Ky. 2018) (interpret statutes by plain meaning to effect legislative intent)
- Asbury Univ. v. Powell, 486 S.W.3d 246 (Ky. 2016) (retaliation claim survives based on good-faith belief; did not expand substantive KCRA coverage)
- Noel v. Elk Brand Mfg. Co., 53 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. App. 2000) (used as example where ADA interpretation informed KCRA construction on ambiguous text)
- Howard Baer, Inc. v. Schave, 127 S.W.3d 589 (Ky. 2003) (KCRA modeled after federal law; Kentucky courts interpret KCRA consistent with federal counterparts)