(1) Any person who exercises any of the functions of a nonelective peace officer or
deputy peace officer in violation of the provisions of KRS 61.300 shall be fined not
less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), or
imprisoned in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or both.
(2) Any person who violates any of the provisions of KRS 61.360 shall be fined not
less than twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500) or be
imprisoned not less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days, or both.
(3) Any person who willfully violates the provisions of KRS 61.102(1) shall be guilty
of a Class A misdemeanor.
(4) A court, in rendering a judgment in an action filed under KRS 61.102 and 61.103,
shall order, as it considers appropriate, 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. A court may also award the
complainant all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney
fees and witness fees.
History: Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 301, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1986. -- Amended
1984 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 43, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts
ch. 24, sec. 1(2), effective July 15, 1980; and ch. 188, sec. 22, effective July 15,
1980. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 383, sec. 2, effective June 17, 1978. -- Created
1960 Ky. Acts ch. 181, sec. 10.
Legislative Research Commission Note. KRS 61.990(2) was formerly a part of KRS
61.300 as amended by Acts 1980, ch. 24, § 1, and was renumbered by the Reviser of
Statutes in 1980.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
· cites it 6× “KRS 61.990(4) states that the Court "shall order, as it considers appropriate, 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.”
Harris v. Camp Taylor Fire Prot. Dist., 303 S.W.3d 479 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 7× “We hold that the trial court did not retain jurisdiction to award costs or attorney’s fees under KRS 61.990(4). The order of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.”
Univ. of Louisville v. Harper, 576 S.W.3d 595 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “KRS 61.990(4) states: A court, in rendering a judgment in an action filed under KRS 61.”
Consol. Infrastructure Mgmt. Auth., Inc. v. Allen, 269 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2008).
“CIMA next contends that Allen failed to establish that he engaged in activity protected by the Whistleblower Act, and that a directed verdict should have been granted.”
Cottrell v. Greenwell (W.D. Ky. 2022).
· cites it 2× “KRS § 61.990(4). The Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, provides, in relevant part: Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.”
Butrum v. Louisville Metro. Gov't (W.D. Ky. 2020).
“For that reason, any claim for punitive damages against Louisville Metro is dismissed apart from Butrum’s whistleblower claim.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.990(3) — 3 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.990(4) — 10 cases
Commonwealth Dep't of Agric. v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2000).
“KRS 61.990(4) states that the Court "shall order, as it considers appropriate, 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.”
Harris v. Camp Taylor Fire Prot. Dist., 303 S.W.3d 479 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
“We hold that the trial court did not retain jurisdiction to award costs or attorney’s fees under KRS 61.990(4). The order of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.”
Univ. of Louisville v. Harper, 576 S.W.3d 595 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).
“KRS 61.990(4) states: A court, in rendering a judgment in an action filed under KRS 61.”
Consol. Infrastructure Mgmt. Auth., Inc. v. Allen, 269 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. 2008).
“CIMA next contends that Allen failed to establish that he engaged in activity protected by the Whistleblower Act, and that a directed verdict should have been granted.”
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.