employee authorized -- Evidence.
As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) (a) "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.
(b) "Contributing factor" means any factor which, alone or in connection with
other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of a decision. It shall be
presumed there existed a "contributing factor" if the official taking the action
knew or had constructive knowledge of the disclosure and acted within a
limited period of time so that a reasonable person would conclude the
disclosure was a factor in the personnel action.
(2) Notwithstanding the administrative remedies granted by KRS Chapters 16, 18A, 78,
90, 95, 156, and other chapters of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, employees
alleging a violation of KRS 61.102(1) or (2) may bring a civil action for appropriate
injunctive relief or punitive damages, or both, within ninety (90) days after the
occurrence of the alleged violation. The action may be filed in the Circuit Court for
the county where the alleged violation occurred, the county where the complainant
resides, or the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed
resides or has his principal place of business.
(3) Employees filing court actions under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section
shall show by a preponderance of evidence that the disclosure was a contributing
factor in the personnel action. Once a prima facie case of reprisal has been
established and disclosure determined to be a contributing factor to the personnel
action, the burden of proof shall be on the agency to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the disclosure was not a material fact in the personnel action.
(4) Any employee who testifies in an official proceeding shall be afforded the same
protections and rights as the employee who makes a disclosure as set forth in KRS
61.102.
Effective: September 16, 1993
History: Amended 1993 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 65, effective September
16, 1993. -- Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 301, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1986.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
· cites it 12× “The amendment also required a new burden of proof from the employer in order to successfully defend a claim under the law.”
Lewis-Smith v. W. Kentucky Univ., 85 F. Supp. 3d 885 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
· cites it 5× “KRS 61.103 defines “contributing factor” as any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of a decision.”
Consol. Infrastructure Mgmt. Auth., Inc. v. Allen, 269 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 7× “Disclosure is defined at KRS 61.103(1) as “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.”
Cabinet for Families & Child. v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 4× “KRS 61.103. ... (2) Notwithstanding the administrative remedies granted by KRS Chapters 16, 18A, 78, 90, 95, 156, and other chapters of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, employees alleging a violation of KRS 61.”
Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009).
· cites it 2× “It dealt with an amendment to the Kentucky Whistleblowers Act, KRS 61.103, which enlarged the substantive rights of employees, as well as the burden of proof of employers.”
Pennyrile Allied Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Rogers, 459 S.W.3d 339 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 2× ““Disclosure” is defined in KRS 61.103(1) as “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.”
Wilson v. City of Cent. City, 372 S.W.3d 863 (Ky. 2012).
“" On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found the trial court’s conclusion as to disclosures made more than a year prior to Wilson’s suspension erroneous, noting that KRS 61.103(l)(b) entitles an employee to the presumption that a disclosure was a contributing factor.”
Stewart v. Kentucky Lottery Corp., 986 S.W.2d 918 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
“Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the action was barred by the ninety-day limitations period set forth in KRS 61.103(2), the whistle-blower protection statute.”
Davis v. Powell's Valley Water Dist., 920 S.W.2d 75 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
“91-428, which dismissed that action with prejudice, has the effect of res judicata as to this action, and therefore this action should be dismissed; and (d) It appears to the Court that this action is barred by the statute of limitations contained in KRS 61.103(1), in that this…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.103(1) — 4 cases
Pennyrile Allied Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Rogers, 459 S.W.3d 339 (Ky. 2015).
““Disclosure” is defined in KRS 61.103(1) as “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.”
Consol. Infrastructure Mgmt. Auth., Inc. v. Allen, 269 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2008).
“Disclosure is defined at KRS 61.103(1) as “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.”
Davis v. Powell's Valley Water Dist., 920 S.W.2d 75 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
“91-428, which dismissed that action with prejudice, has the effect of res judicata as to this action, and therefore this action should be dismissed; and (d) It appears to the Court that this action is barred by the statute of limitations contained in KRS 61.103(1), in that this…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.103(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.103(1)(b) — 6 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.103(2) — 13 cases
Consol. Infrastructure Mgmt. Auth., Inc. v. Allen, 269 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2008).
“Disclosure is defined at KRS 61.103(1) as “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.”
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
“The amendment also required a new burden of proof from the employer in order to successfully defend a claim under the law.”
Cabinet for Families & Child. v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2005).
“KRS 61.103. ... (2) Notwithstanding the administrative remedies granted by KRS Chapters 16, 18A, 78, 90, 95, 156, and other chapters of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, employees alleging a violation of KRS 61.”
Stewart v. Kentucky Lottery Corp., 986 S.W.2d 918 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
“Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the action was barred by the ninety-day limitations period set forth in KRS 61.103(2), the whistle-blower protection statute.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.103(3) — 13 cases
Lewis-Smith v. W. Kentucky Univ., 85 F. Supp. 3d 885 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
“KRS 61.103 defines “contributing factor” as any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of a decision.”
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
“The amendment also required a new burden of proof from the employer in order to successfully defend a claim under the law.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.103(l)(a) — 2 cases
Lewis-Smith v. W. Kentucky Univ., 85 F. Supp. 3d 885 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
“KRS 61.103 defines “contributing factor” as any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of a decision.”
Pennyrile Allied Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Rogers, 459 S.W.3d 339 (Ky. 2015).
““Disclosure” is defined in KRS 61.103(1) as “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.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.103(l)(b) — 5 cases
Lewis-Smith v. W. Kentucky Univ., 85 F. Supp. 3d 885 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
“KRS 61.103 defines “contributing factor” as any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of a decision.”
Wilson v. City of Cent. City, 372 S.W.3d 863 (Ky. 2012).
“" On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found the trial court’s conclusion as to disclosures made more than a year prior to Wilson’s suspension erroneous, noting that KRS 61.103(l)(b) entitles an employee to the presumption that a disclosure was a contributing factor.”
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.