24-ORD-084
March 22, 2024
In re: Christopher Otts/Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission
Summary: The Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission
(“Commission”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it
withheld complaints that were exempt under KRS 344.250(6).
Open Records Decision
Christopher Otts (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Commission seeking
copies of “the complaint” and “the conciliation agreement” in twelve housing
discrimination cases handled by the Commission. The Commissioner denied the
request for both categories of records pursuant to KRS 344.250(6) and
KRS 61.878(1)(l). This appeal followed.1
KRS 344.250(6), which is incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(l), states
that “[i]t is unlawful for a commissioner or employee of the commission to make public
with respect to a particular person without his consent information obtained by the
commission pursuant to its authority under this section except as reasonably
necessary to the conduct of a proceeding under this chapter.”
The Office has previously held that, “[if] the proceeding . . . results in a
dismissal of the complaint or the entering of a conciliation agreement, then only the
order of dismissal or the terms of the conciliation agreement are subject to public
inspection.” OAG 85-5. But “[i]f the proceeding has progressed to the point of a
hearing . . . the complaint which would normally be introduced at the hearing . . .
would . . . be subject to public inspection under the [Act].” OAG 85-5. To the extent
any of the cases identified by the Appellant “progressed to the point of a hearing,” the
1
After the Appellant initiated this appeal, the Commission determined it should have produced the
requested conciliation agreements and has since provided the Appellant with those records. As such,
any dispute regarding that portion of the Appellant’s request is now moot. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6.Commission’s denial of the complaints filed in those cases would have violated the
Act. However, the Appellant sought the complaint and conciliation agreement for
each case. Therefore, it appears that none of the cases “progressed to the point of a
hearing.” Accordingly, the Commission did not violate the Act when it denied the
Appellant’s request for complaints in housing discrimination cases that were resolved
with a conciliation agreement.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified
of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in
any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#146
Distributed to:
Christopher Otts
Alice Lyon
Nicole Pang
Natalie S. Johnson
Annale Taylor