University of Kentucky v. Bobbye Carpenter
2015 SC 000384
Ky.Aug 22, 2017Background
- Seven female University of Kentucky Police Department (UKPD) officers sued UK, Police Chief Joseph Monroe, and Public Safety Director Kenneth Clevidence alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and violations of the Kentucky Whistleblower Act.
- After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment; trial court denied, then ordered separate trials for plaintiffs post-Wal-Mart v. Dukes reasoning; Carpenter tried first.
- Trial court limited testimony from other female officers to acts by the same supervisors and contemporaneous with Carpenter's alleged treatment.
- After Carpenter presented her case, the trial court granted defendants' directed verdict as to Carpenter; later the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on remaining plaintiffs' claims (including Marco and Chilton).
- The Court of Appeals reversed as to Carpenter (directed verdict) and as to Marco and Chilton (summary judgments), and remanded for possible joinder; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the trial court did not err and reinstating the directed verdict and summary judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder / separate trials | Plaintiffs argued claims should be tried together to show a pattern or practice of discrimination. | Defendants argued plaintiffs had different supervisors, times, positions, and facts making joinder inappropriate. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering separate trials; joinder denial not reversible error. |
| Admissibility — testimony of other officers at Carpenter trial | Carpenter argued broader testimony from co-plaintiffs was necessary to show discriminatory pattern. | Defendants argued testimony beyond same decisionmakers/timeframe would be irrelevant and prejudicial (KRE 404(b)). | Trial court properly limited testimony to decisions by the same supervisors during Carpenter's relevant timeframe. |
| Sufficiency of evidence — Marco (discrimination / hostile work environment) | Marco argued romantic overtures, rumors, closer supervision, denied backup/shift change, and workplace conduct supported discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. | Defendants argued incidents were isolated, non‑pervasive, lacked proof of adverse action tied to sex, and provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (customs, similarly treated comparators). | Trial court correctly granted summary judgment; evidence insufficient to show severe/pervasive environment or disparate treatment by gender. |
| Sufficiency of evidence — Chilton (discrimination / retaliation) | Chilton argued a shift change during pregnancy leave and receipt of sexually themed mail supported discrimination/hostile environment; claimed duties downgraded after meeting with university president showed retaliation. | Defendants presented nondiscriminatory reasons for shift change (skill, leadership needs, department-wide changes) and showed no knowledge of Chilton's meeting by decisionmakers, breaking causation for retaliation. | Trial court correctly granted summary judgment; shift change not shown to be pretextual given skills/seniority differences; retaliation failed for lack of causal link/knowledge. |
| Directed verdict — Carpenter (discrimination/retaliation/whistleblower) | Carpenter argued evidentiary restrictions and collective proof deprived her of needed evidence to survive. | Defendants argued her individual evidence failed to show adverse employment actions, pretext, or that Monroe/Clevidence were employers under Whistleblower Act; trial court's evidentiary limits were proper. | Directed verdict affirmed: trial court not clearly erroneous; Carpenter failed to prove prima facie discrimination, retaliation, or whistleblower claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class/collective proof requires commonality; applied by trial court in assessing joinder)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Bierman v. Klapeke, 967 S.W.2d 16 (Ky. 1998) (standard of review for directed verdict)
- Hammons v. Hammons, 327 S.W.3d 444 (Ky. 2010) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Commonwealth v. Solly, 253 S.W.3d 537 (Ky. 2008) (adoption of McDonnell Douglas test under Kentucky law)
- Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. 2000) (elements and severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile-work-environment claims)