Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 67A.280 (2026)

Dismissal, suspension, or reduction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) No employee in the classified service of urban-county government, after serving a probationary period provided by comprehensive plan or ordinance for his class, which shall not be in excess of six (6) months, shall be dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade or pay for any reason except inefficiency, misconduct, insubordination, or violation of law involving moral turpitude.

(2) Any person may prefer charges in writing against any employee by filing them with the appointing authority who shall communicate the charges without delay to the head of the executive unit in charge of personnel matters, and to the civil service commission. The charges must be signed by the person making them and must set out clearly each charge. The appointing authority shall, whenever probable cause appears, prefer charges against any employee whom he believes guilty of conduct justifying his removal or disciplinary action. Upon the filing of charges, the secretary of the civil service commission shall notify its members and serve a copy of the charges upon the accused employee with a statement of the date, place, and hour at which the hearing of charges will begin, this hearing not to be held within three (3) days of the date of the service of charges upon the accused employee. The day on which the charges are served on the accused employee shall count as one of the days of notice. The person accused may in writing waive the service of charges and demand trial within three (3) days after they have been filed with the secretary of the civil service commission.

(3) Upon the hearing, the charges shall be considered traversed and put in issue, and the trial shall be limited to the issues presented by the written charges, provided, however, that the charges may be amended prior to trial, in which event the notice procedures hereinabove described shall be again complied with, and reasonable opportunity given for the preparation for trial on the amended charges.

(4) The civil service commission shall have the power to summon and compel attendance of witnesses at all hearings by subpoena issued by the secretary of that body and served upon the witnesses by members of the police department of the urban-county government or any officer authorized to serve subpoenas. If any witness fails to appear in response to a summons or refuses to testify concerning any matter on which he may lawfully be interrogated, any District Judge, on application of the commission, may compel obedience by proceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of a subpoena issued from the District Court. The accused employee shall have the right to have subpoenaed any witnesses he may desire, upon furnishing their names to the secretary. Subpoenas may be served on the request of the accused employee without charge. They shall be issued by the secretary and served by the police department. The action and decision of the civil service commission on the charges shall be reduced to writing and kept in a book for that purpose and the written charge shall be attached to the book containing the body's decision.

(5) In cases where the head of the department or executive unit or the appointing authority has probable cause to believe an employee has been guilty of conduct justifying his removal or punishment, he shall immediately suspend that employee from duty or from both pay and duty pending trial and the employee shall not be placed on duty or allowed pay thereafter until the charges are heard by the civil service commission.

(6) The civil service commission shall punish any employee found guilty by reprimand or a suspension for any length of time not to exceed six (6) months, or by reducing the grade, if the employee's classification warrants, or by combining any two (2) or more of these punishments, or by dismissal. No employee shall be reprimanded, removed, suspended, or dismissed except as provided in this section.

(7) Irrespective of the other provisions of KRS 67A.230 to 67A.310, an employee may be suspended by the head of the executive unit in which he is employed, or by the appointing authority, but only as provided by comprehensive plan or ordinance, for a period not exceeding 30 days in any twelve (12) month period, and may be reprimanded by such head or authority not more than twice in any twelve (12) month period. In such event, the actions of such head or appointing authority shall be subject to appeal to the commission. Such appeal shall be filed with the secretary of the commission within ten (10) days of the action of the unit head or appointing authority, and may be reviewed, reduced, or revoked by the commission after a hearing in which the unit head or appointing authority shall have reasonable opportunity under rules established by the commission, to support his charges. The grounds of suspension or reprimand under this subsection shall be only those set out by comprehensive plan or ordinance. The commission shall further have the power, in the event it finds that the unit head or appointing officer acted in error, to take such action as shall be necessary to compensate the appealing employee for such error. An appeal by an employee shall not suspend the operation of the action of the unit head or appointing authority pending action of the commission.

(8) Nothing herein shall prevent the comprehensive plan or ordinance from providing additional remedies and rights to employees. Effective: January 2, 1978 History: Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 51, effective January 2, 1978. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 246, sec. 8, effective June 21, 1974.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Brady v. Pettit, 586 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. 1979).
Brady v. Pettit, 586 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. 1979). · cites it 4× “On October 17, the mayor filed charges in accordance with KRS 67A.280 against Brady. After holding a lengthy hearing, the civil service commission concluded that Brady had a duty to discuss his accusations with his superiors in county government before airing them publicly.”
Crouch v. Jefferson Cnty., Kentucky Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461 (Ky. 1989). “290, which provides in pertinent part: (1) Any employe of the urban-county government found guilty by the civil service commission of any charge as provided by KRS 67A.280 or any action upheld under subsection (7) of the said section, or any amendment thereto, may appeal to the…”
Wilson v. Askew, 568 S.W.3d 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019). “The trial court found that the CSC's determination did not need to be vacated for failing to make specific findings of fact or conclusions of law because the CSC complied with KRS 67A.280(4), which only required that the action and decision of the CSC on the charges be reduced…”
Curtis Carter v. Lexington Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “]” See also KRS 67A.280(3). Appellants also argue that, unlike the Lexington Human Rights Commission, the Civil Service Commission lacks express written authority to hear claims of discrimination and retaliation under the KCRA, citing KRS 344.”
Harold Byrne v. Lfucg & Its Civil Serv. Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Based upon these charges, LFUCG requested that the Commission2 dismiss Byrne from his position pursuant to KRS 67A.280 and Section 21-44 of LFUCG’s Code of Ordinances.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 67A.280(3) — 1 case
Curtis Carter v. Lexington Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “]” See also KRS 67A.280(3). Appellants also argue that, unlike the Lexington Human Rights Commission, the Civil Service Commission lacks express written authority to hear claims of discrimination and retaliation under the KCRA, citing KRS 344.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 67A.280(4) — 1 case
Wilson v. Askew, 568 S.W.3d 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019). “The trial court found that the CSC's determination did not need to be vacated for failing to make specific findings of fact or conclusions of law because the CSC complied with KRS 67A.280(4), which only required that the action and decision of the CSC on the charges be reduced…”
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.