Miller v. Administrative Office of the Courts
361 S.W.3d 867
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Miller was employed in the Jefferson Circuit Court Clerk’s Office and terminated in 2001.
- She sued in federal court alleging due process, First Amendment, and Kentucky whistleblower claims, naming AOC, Vize, Wine, and later Shake.
- AOC was dismissed from the federal action on Eleventh Amendment immunity while Vize, Wine, and Shake remained.
- After federal dismissal, Miller pursued a state court action alleging state constitutional due process and whistleblower claims against AOC.
- The federal court later dismissed the remaining federal and state claims against Vize and Wine; the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part.
- The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed Miller’s state claims as barred by res judicata, leading to this transfer for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars Miller’s AOC claims | Miller (noting lack of identity of parties due to AOC’s Eleventh Amendment dismissal) | AOC argues privity and identity of issues justify claim preclusion | Not barred; Restatement §26(l)(c) exception applies; remand warranted |
| Whether issue preclusion bars Miller’s whistleblower claim | Sixth Circuit decision did not decide protection merits | Sixth Circuit relied on Cummings to affirm; issue preclusion may apply | Not barred; final decision did not decide protected conduct; remand warranted |
| Whether sovereign immunity prevents a due process remedy | Federal due process rights prevail over state sovereign immunity | AOC immune from damages but not from prospective relief | Sovereign immunity does not bar prospective due process relief; remand warranted to determine tenure and procedures |
| Whether Miller’s tenure status affects due process entitlement | If tenured, entitled to due process rights under AOC procedures | Tenure status unclear; merits depend on status | Remand to determine whether Miller was tenured and whether procedures were followed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yeoman v. Commonwealth, 983 S.W.2d 459 (Ky.1998) (distinguishes claim vs. issue preclusion and same-transaction analysis)
- Moore v. Commonwealth, 954 S.W.2d 317 (Ky.1997) (collateral estoppel; privity and essential issue requirements)
- Sedley v. City of West Buechel, 461 S.W.2d 556 (Ky.1970) (prospective application of res judicata principles)
- Cream Top Creamery v. Dean Milk Co., 383 F.2d 358 (6th Cir.1967) (Restatement §26(l)(c) exception on forum limitations)
- Coomer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 319 S.W.3d 366 (Ky.2010) (limits on claim preclusion in complex procedural contexts)
- Kirchner v. Riherd, 702 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.1985) (splitting claims and related preclusion considerations)
- St. Luke Hosp. v. Straub, 354 S.W.3d 529 (Ky.2011) (sovereign immunity and due process interactions)
- Cabinet for Families & Children v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky.2005) (whistleblower statute exceptions and individual liability)
- Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887 (6th Cir.2006) ( Sixth Circuit decision; groundwork for issue framing)