prohibited -- Construction of statute.
(1) No employer shall subject to reprisal, or directly or indirectly use, or threaten to use,
any official authority or influence, in any manner whatsoever, which tends to
discourage, restrain, depress, dissuade, deter, prevent, interfere with, coerce, or
discriminate against any employee who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges, or
otherwise brings to the attention of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission,
the Attorney General, the Auditor of Public Accounts, the Executive Branch Ethics
Commission, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any of
its members or employees, the Legislative Research Commission or any of its
committees, members or employees, the judiciary or any member or employee of
the judiciary, any law enforcement agency or its employees, or any other appropriate
body or authority, any facts or information relative to an actual or suspected
violation of any law, statute, executive order, administrative regulation, mandate,
rule, or ordinance of the United States, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any of
its political subdivisions, or any facts or information relative to actual or suspected
mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific
danger to public health or safety. No employer shall require any employee to give
notice prior to making such a report, disclosure, or divulgence.
(2) No employer shall subject to reprisal or discriminate against, or use any official
authority or influence to cause reprisal or discrimination by others against, any
person who supports, aids, or substantiates any employee who makes public any
wrongdoing set forth in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) This section shall not be construed as:
(a) Prohibiting an employer from requiring that an employee inform him or her of
an official request made to an agency for information, or the substance of
testimony made, or to be made, by the employee to legislators on behalf of an
agency;
(b) Permitting the employee to leave his or her assigned work area during normal
work hours without following applicable law, administrative regulations,
rules, or policies pertaining to leave, unless the employee is requested by the
Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission or the Executive Branch Ethics
Commission to appear before the commission, or by a legislator or a
legislative committee to appear before a legislative committee;
(c) Authorizing an employee to represent his or her personal opinions as the
opinions of his or her employer; or
(d) Prohibiting disciplinary or punitive action if an employee discloses
information which he or she knows:
1. To be false or which he or she discloses with reckless disregard for its
truth or falsity;
2. To be exempt from required disclosure under the provisions of KRS
61.870 to 61.884; or
3. Is confidential under any other provision of law.
Effective: July 12, 2012
History: Amended 2012 Ky. Acts ch. 34, sec. 2, effective July 12, 2012. -- Amended
1993 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 64, effective September 16, 1993. --
Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 301, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1986.
Notes of Decisions
Workforce Dev. Cabinet v. Gaines, 276 S.W.3d 789 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 42× “On March 5, 2003, Gaines amended her complaint to include a whistleblower claim under KRS 61.102. Gaines argued that she was transferred to the Preston Highway office as retaliation for reporting the document purge.”
Pennyrile Allied Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Rogers, 459 S.W.3d 339 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 29× “OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS KRS 61.102, commonly known as the Kentucky “whistleblower” statute, prohibits reprisal against a public employee “who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges .”
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
· cites it 18× “2d 527 (1992), held that KRS 61.102 was designed to protect employees from reprisals for disclosures of violations of the law.”
Cabinet for Families & Child. v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 14× “] KRS 61.102 prohibits employers from subjecting public employees to reprisal for reporting information relating to the employer's violation of the law, alleged fraud, or abuse, etc.”
Davidson v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Military Affairs, 152 S.W.3d 247 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 11× “12 In order to demonstrate a -violation of KRS 61.102, an employee must establish the following four elements: (1) the employer is an officer of the state; (2) the employee is employed by the state; (3) the employee made or attempted to make a good faith report or disclosure of…”
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
· cites it 2× “); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.102 (1) (West 2005); Mo.”
Knott Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Patton, 415 S.W.3d 51 (Ky. 2013).
· cites it 16× “Appellants argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it invoked, sua sponte, KRS 61.102, Kentucky’s whistleblower act, as the rationale supporting Patton’s claim that her job had been improperly terminated.”
Cherryl Kirilenko-Ison v. Bd. of Ed. Danville Indep., 974 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs also claim that the School Board violated the Kentucky Whistleblower Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.102, by retaliating against them for reporting a parent’s suspected child neglect to Kentucky’s Cabinet for Families and Children.”
Thornton v. Off. of the Fayette Cnty. Attorney, 292 S.W.3d 324 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 13× “Notwithstanding Thornton’s at-will status, we must now ascertain the impact of KRS 61.102 and 61.103 on public employment in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in general and Thornton in particular.”
Lewis-Smith v. W. Kentucky Univ., 85 F. Supp. 3d 885 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
· cites it 5× “For purposes of a whistleblower action, “disclosure” means “a person acting on his own behalf, or on behalf of another, who reported or is about to report, either verbally or in writing, any matter set forth in KRS 61.102.” KRS 61.103(l)(a). Plaintiff does not dispute…”
Boykins v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 842 S.W.2d 527 (Ky. 1992).
· cites it 7× “We first look at whether KRS 61.102, the so-called "Whistle Blower" statute, is applicable in this case.”
Consol. Infrastructure Mgmt. Auth., Inc. v. Allen, 269 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 6× “990(4) specifically permits a court to order “reinstatement of the employee, the payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, exemplary or punitive damages, or any combination thereof’ in actions filed under KRS 61.102 and 61.103. Yet, there…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.102(1) — 42 cases
Workforce Dev. Cabinet v. Gaines, 276 S.W.3d 789 (Ky. 2008).
“On March 5, 2003, Gaines amended her complaint to include a whistleblower claim under KRS 61.102. Gaines argued that she was transferred to the Preston Highway office as retaliation for reporting the document purge.”
Cabinet for Families & Child. v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2005).
“] KRS 61.102 prohibits employers from subjecting public employees to reprisal for reporting information relating to the employer's violation of the law, alleged fraud, or abuse, etc.”
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
“2d 527 (1992), held that KRS 61.102 was designed to protect employees from reprisals for disclosures of violations of the law.”
Pennyrile Allied Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Rogers, 459 S.W.3d 339 (Ky. 2015).
“OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS KRS 61.102, commonly known as the Kentucky “whistleblower” statute, prohibits reprisal against a public employee “who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges .”
Knott Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Patton, 415 S.W.3d 51 (Ky. 2013).
“Appellants argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it invoked, sua sponte, KRS 61.102, Kentucky’s whistleblower act, as the rationale supporting Patton’s claim that her job had been improperly terminated.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.102(2) — 8 cases
Thornton v. Off. of the Fayette Cnty. Attorney, 292 S.W.3d 324 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
“Notwithstanding Thornton’s at-will status, we must now ascertain the impact of KRS 61.102 and 61.103 on public employment in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in general and Thornton in particular.”
Workforce Dev. Cabinet v. Gaines, 276 S.W.3d 789 (Ky. 2008).
“On March 5, 2003, Gaines amended her complaint to include a whistleblower claim under KRS 61.102. Gaines argued that she was transferred to the Preston Highway office as retaliation for reporting the document purge.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.102(3) — 2 cases
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
“2d 527 (1992), held that KRS 61.102 was designed to protect employees from reprisals for disclosures of violations of the law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.