retaliation claim in Kentucky

2023There are four elements of a retaliation claim: “a plaintiff must produce evidence that (1) she engaged in protected activity (2) that was known to the defendant (3) who thereafter took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff, (4) which was causally connected to the plaintiffs [sic] protected activity.” Asbury Univ. v. -8- Powell, 486 S.W.3d 246, 258 (Ky. 2016).

2021Therefore, as Barnett argues, it is true that Powell concerned alleged discrimination that was not expressly covered by the KCRA, but the retaliation claim, which is what this Court upheld as properly brought, was within the express language of the statute. 12 Id. 13 Id. at 251 . 14 Id. at 251–52. 15 Id. at 252 . 6 This Court also agrees with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission v. Metro Management,16 an unpublished opinion Barnett cites, is not persuasive.17 The Court of Appeals’ panel in Metro Management held that an interracial couple

2026This is true even though Lazarus Coal also argues Adkins was not pursuing a workers’ compensation claim because he immediately returned to work the day after his injury, quoting Southerland v. Hardaway Management Co., Inc., 41 F.3d 250, 256 (6th Cir. 1994): We agree with the district court that Ms. Southerland’s documentary and deposition evidence do not establish the elements of a retaliation claim.

2026Kentucky, 211 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Ky. App. 2006) (citing Overnite Transportation Co. v. Gaddis, 793 S.W.2d 129, 130-31 (Ky. App. 1990)).

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW “Since a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is a pure question of law, a reviewing court owes no deference to a trial court’s determination; instead, an appellate court reviews the issue de novo.” Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2010) (citation omitted).

2026See First Property Management Corp. v. Zarebidaki, 867 S.W.2d 185, 189 (Ky. 1993) (the retaliation statute is implicated when an employer is aware that the employee intends to pursue a lawful workers’ compensation claim); Bishop, 211 S.W.3d at 75 (“an employee may have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge even if he has not yet filed a formal workers’ compensation claim.”).

2026Kentucky, 211 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Ky. App. 2006) (citing Overnite Transportation Co. v. Gaddis, 793 S.W.2d 129, 130-31 (Ky. App. 1990)).

2026See First Property Management Corp. v. Zarebidaki, 867 S.W.2d 185, 189 (Ky. 1993) (the retaliation statute is implicated when an employer is aware that the employee intends to pursue a lawful workers’ compensation claim); Bishop, 211 S.W.3d at 75 (“an employee may have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge even if he has not yet filed a formal workers’ compensation claim.”).

2025White holds that the showing required for a Title VII retaliation claim “is less burdensome than what a plaintiff must demonstrate for a Title VII discrimination claim.” Rogers v. Henry Ford Health Sys., 897 F.3d 763, 775 (6th Cir. 2018).

2022In Wright, Kentucky adopted the test for a retaliation claim set out in Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999): A retaliation claim essentially entails three elements: (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and two – that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s protected conduct.

2022See Brooks, 132 S.W.3d at 803 .

2016See Midland Guardian Acceptance Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio v. Britt, 439 S.W.2d 313, 314 (Ky.1968) ("Courts of record speak only by their orders duly entered and signed in the books provided for that purpose.” (citation omitted)). .

2011Therein, the necessary elements are described: In order to state a retaliation claim under the First Amendment a plaintiff must show that: “1) [she] engaged in constitutionally protected speech; 2)[she] was subjected to adverse action or was deprived of some benefit; and 3) the protected speech was a ‘substantial’ or a ‘motivating factor’ in the adverse action.” Brandenburg v. Housing Auth. of Irvine, 253 F.3d 891, 897 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Mt.

2001Rather those suits initiated in state court in good faith and as an attempt to rehabilitate the employer's reputations which may have been tarnished by the charges are not necessarily violations of the Act. . . . [T]he Commission must demonstrate that the action was filed for improper, i.e. retaliatory purposes." Id. ). [23] Beckham v. Grand Affair of North Carolina, Inc., supra note 14 at 419-420. [24] Ky., 621 S.W.2d 895, 899 (1981). [25] Id. (emphasis added). [26] KRE 408. [27] Id. [28] See 1992 Kentucky Evidence Rules Study Commentary to KRE 408 ("The law has long fostered voluntary disput

2001Rather those suits initiated in state court in good faith and as an attempt to rehabilitate the employer's reputations which may have been tarnished by the charges are not necessarily violations of the Act. . . . [T]he Commission must demonstrate that the action was filed for improper, i.e. retaliatory purposes." Id. ). [23] Beckham v. Grand Affair of North Carolina, Inc., supra note 14 at 419-420. [24] Ky., 621 S.W.2d 895, 899 (1981). [25] Id. (emphasis added). [26] KRE 408. [27] Id. [28] See 1992 Kentucky Evidence Rules Study Commentary to KRE 408 ("The law has long fostered voluntary disput