576 S.W.3d 595
Ky. Ct. App.2019Background
- Laurel Harper sued University of Louisville under Kentucky Whistleblower Act (KRS 61.102 et seq.) and for gender discrimination; a jury found liability under the Whistleblower Act and awarded back pay and $201,000 for mental anguish.
- Trial court entered judgment for Harper, awarded attorney fees and post-judgment interest, and denied Harper front-pay relief; University appealed and Harper cross-appealed front pay denial.
- This Court initially reversed; Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated the jury verdict and remanded to address unresolved appellate issues.
- On remand, this Court reviewed whether damages and remedies awarded were proper, and whether various errors were preserved for appeal.
- Court concluded the Whistleblower Act authorizes a limited set of remedies (reinstatement, back wages, benefits, punitive damages, fees), and mental anguish and post-judgment interest are not authorized remedies under that statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compensatory damages were excessive because Harper failed to mitigate income loss | Harper: issue not preserved by University; trial court need not calculate deductions | University: trial court should have deducted earnings/unemployment from award | Not preserved by University; court declines to review |
| Whether Harper could recover mental anguish damages under Whistleblower Act | Harper: KRS 446.070 allows private actions to recover compensatory damages including mental anguish | University: Whistleblower Act prescribes remedies and does not include mental anguish | Reversed mental anguish award; Whistleblower Act does not authorize such damages |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding post-judgment interest against University | Harper: interest appropriate | University: no statutory/contractual authority for interest | Reversed award of post-judgment interest; public agency not liable absent statute/contract |
| Whether attorney fees award was excessive | Harper: fee award appropriate and considered lack of complete success | University: hourly rate/excessive fee and failure to reduce for unsuccessful claims | Court affirms fee award; no manifest injustice in amount or reductions |
| Whether front pay is available under Whistleblower Act | Harper: Macglashan supports front pay availability for whistleblower claims | University: Whistleblower Act’s remedies do not include front pay | Denied: front pay not authorized by KRS 61.990(4); trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. App. 1990) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- Skaggs v. Assad, 712 S.W.2d 947 (Ky. 1986) (errors must be precisely preserved for appeal)
- Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc., 840 S.W.2d 814 (Ky. 1992) (mental anguish recoverable under KRS Chapter 344 discrimination claims)
- Commonwealth Dep’t of Agriculture v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000) (Whistleblower Act remedies limited to statute)
- Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399 (Ky. 1985) (KRS 446.070 private-right-of-action limited where statute prescribes remedy)
- Macglashan v. ABS Lincs KY, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 792 (Ky. 2014) (front pay available where statute provides no specific remedies and KRS 446.070 applies)
- Commonwealth, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet v. Gaither, 539 S.W.3d 667 (Ky. 2018) (public agencies not liable for interest absent statutory/contractual authority)
- Fiscal Court of Jefferson County v. Brady, 885 S.W.2d 681 (Ky. 1994) (expressio unius rule in statutory construction)