remedies doctrine in Kansas

2016"Under the alternative remedies doctrine, a state or federal statute could be substituted for a state retaliation claim—if the substituted statute provides an adequate alternative remedy." 292 Kan. at 236 ; Hysten, 277 Kan. at 561 ; see also Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 266 Kan. 198, 202-03 , 967 P.2d 295 (1998).

2013This is commonly referred to as the alternative remedies doctrine. “ ‘Under the alternative remedies doctrine, a state or federal statute would be substituted for a state retaliation claim if tire substituted statute provides for an adequate alternative remedy. [Citations omitted.] The question to ask in resolving recognition of a state tort claim for retaliatory discharge is whether the statutory remedy is adequate and thus precludes the common-law remedy. [Citation omitted.]’ [Citation omitted.]” 277 Kan. at 561 .

2001Bair v. Peck, 248 Kan. 824, 838 , 811 P.2d 1176 (1991).’ “Our reference to Bair v. Peck was to the statement dierein diat ‘[i]t has long been recognized that no one has a vested right in common-law rules governing negligence actions which would preclude substituting a viable statutoiy remedy for one available at common law. [Citation omitted.]’ 248 Kan. at 838-89 .

2001Bair v. Peck, 248 Kan. 824, 838 , 811 P.2d 1176 (1991).’ “Our reference to Bair v. Peck was to the statement dierein diat ‘[i]t has long been recognized that no one has a vested right in common-law rules governing negligence actions which would preclude substituting a viable statutoiy remedy for one available at common law. [Citation omitted.]’ 248 Kan. at 838-89 .

2004If the answer to (1) is yes, under the Kansas doctrine of alternative remedies — as articulated in Flenker, 266 Kan. 198 ; Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. 804 , 752 P.2d 645 (1988); or elsewhere — do the remedies available in tire Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., (2000) preclude an action in tort based on an employer s discharge of an employee in retaliation for the employee’s exercise of rights under FELA?

2004If the answer to (1) is yes, under the Kansas doctrine of alternative remedies — as articulated in Flenker, 266 Kan. 198 ; Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. 804 , 752 P.2d 645 (1988); or elsewhere — do the remedies available in tire Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., (2000) preclude an action in tort based on an employer s discharge of an employee in retaliation for the employee’s exercise of rights under FELA?

2002If Congress had intended that suppression and dismissal were the appropriate remedies for a violation of a confidentiality it would have so provided.” State v. Magnuson, 210 Mont. 401, 408 , 682 P.2d 1365 (1984).

2002If Congress had intended that suppression and dismissal were the appropriate remedies for a violation of a confidentiality it would have so provided.” State v. Magnuson, 210 Mont. 401, 408 , 682 P.2d 1365 (1984).

2001Ed. 2d 636 , 119 S. Ct. 2240 (1999); Schall v. Wichita State University, [ 269 Kan. 456 , 7 P.3d 1144 ] ( 2000), and Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents, [ 269 Kan. 881 , 9 P.3d 1251 ] (2000). “2. (a) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-law ‘whistle-blowing’ claim for relief should not be dismissed under the alternative remedies doctrine because K.S.A. 75-2973 provides a classified civil service employee an *10 adequate alternative remedy and thereby precludes the common-law remedy, or in the alternative, (b) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-la

2001Ed. 2d 636 , 119 S. Ct. 2240 (1999); Schall v. Wichita State University, [ 269 Kan. 456 , 7 P.3d 1144 ] ( 2000), and Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents, [ 269 Kan. 881 , 9 P.3d 1251 ] (2000). “2. (a) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-law ‘whistle-blowing’ claim for relief should not be dismissed under the alternative remedies doctrine because K.S.A. 75-2973 provides a classified civil service employee an *10 adequate alternative remedy and thereby precludes the common-law remedy, or in the alternative, (b) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-la

2001Ed. 2d 636 , 119 S. Ct. 2240 (1999); Schall v. Wichita State University, [ 269 Kan. 456 , 7 P.3d 1144 ] ( 2000), and Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents, [ 269 Kan. 881 , 9 P.3d 1251 ] (2000). “2. (a) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-law ‘whistle-blowing’ claim for relief should not be dismissed under the alternative remedies doctrine because K.S.A. 75-2973 provides a classified civil service employee an *10 adequate alternative remedy and thereby precludes the common-law remedy, or in the alternative, (b) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-la

2001Ed. 2d 636 , 119 S. Ct. 2240 (1999); Schall v. Wichita State University, [ 269 Kan. 456 , 7 P.3d 1144 ] ( 2000), and Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents, [ 269 Kan. 881 , 9 P.3d 1251 ] (2000). “2. (a) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-law ‘whistle-blowing’ claim for relief should not be dismissed under the alternative remedies doctrine because K.S.A. 75-2973 provides a classified civil service employee an *10 adequate alternative remedy and thereby precludes the common-law remedy, or in the alternative, (b) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-la

2001Ed. 2d 636 , 119 S. Ct. 2240 (1999); Schall v. Wichita State University, [ 269 Kan. 456 , 7 P.3d 1144 ] ( 2000), and Goldbarth v. Kansas State Board of Regents, [ 269 Kan. 881 , 9 P.3d 1251 ] (2000). “2. (a) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-law ‘whistle-blowing’ claim for relief should not be dismissed under the alternative remedies doctrine because K.S.A. 75-2973 provides a classified civil service employee an *10 adequate alternative remedy and thereby precludes the common-law remedy, or in the alternative, (b) Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-la

2001The arguments of the State in this appeal and the responses of the plaintiffs had actually been raised and briefed at the time we issued our show cause order in Prager , where we asked: *953 “ ‘Why appellant’s appeal as to his issue raising a common-law “whistleblowing” claim for relief should not be dismissed under the alternative remedies doctrine because K.S.A. 75-2973 provides a classified civil service employee an adequate alternative remedy and thereby precludes the common-law remedy.’ ” 271 Kan. at 9-10 .