Skip to main content
Cited Statutes Annotation
387 Fed. Appx. 538 61.872, 61.878 Although the former employees alleged that the general manager’s production of the disciplinary action forms in response to a record request was actionable because, at least as to two employees, the forms contained untrue statements about the employees acting dishonestly when they examined confidential information on the employer’s computer system without permission following one of the employee’s discharge, the general manager’s decisions to discharge the employees were not conditional and did not need the board of directors’  approval; the general manager had the authority to terminate employees, and the terminations represented his final action. That the discharges could potentially have been set aside by the board during the grievance hearing did not transform the disciplinary action forms into preliminary drafts, notes, or correspondence. Burgess v. Paducah Area Transit Auth., 387 Fed. Appx. 538, 2010 FED App. 0421N, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14384 (6th Cir. Ky. 2010). Link
Central Kentucky New Journal v. George 61.872, 61.878, 61.882 Where a school district employee settled her lawsuit against one school district for sexual harassment by a district official and a second lawsuit against another district for allegedly wrongfully failing to hire her, the lower courts erred in denying a newspaper’s request for access to the settlement agreements under the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 to 61.884, because the settlement of litigation between a government agency and one of its employees and a private citizen and a governmental entity were matters of legitimate public concern that the public is entitled to scrutinize. A confidentiality clause in such agreements was not entitled to protection. Cent. Ky. News-Journal v. George, 306 S.W.3d 41, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 72 (Ky. 2010). Link
Laboratory Corp. America Holding v. Rudolph 61.872 Bid protestor was entitled to seek judicial review of the award of the contract for statewide genetic testing services for the 2004 fiscal year, which was made to another vendor, even though the contract had expired as a protestor has standing to seek judicial review as such a matter presents a case and controversy despite the contract ending. However, judgment in favor of the various Commonwealth of Kentucky agencies and the winning bid maker was upheld on appeal, because the substance of the protestor’s complaint alleged alternative interpretation of the bid terms, which was a discretion afforded to the Commonwealth as a contracting officer in a negotiated procurement, and the protestor provided no valid reason, such as fraud, in challenging the award to the winning bid maker. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Rudolph, 184 S.W.3d 68, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 169 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005). Link
Lexington-Fayette v. Herald-Leader Co. 61.872 An agreement which represents the final settlement of a civil lawsuit whereby a governmental entity pays public funds to compensate for an injury it inflicted is a public record and is open to inspection by any person as provided in subsection (1) of this section and the government is without any basis upon which to claim a right of privacy and unless such documents are excluded from disclosure by one or more provisions of the Open Records Act, they must be produced. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexington Herald-Leader Co., 941 S.W.2d 469, 1997 Ky. LEXIS 38 (Ky. 1997). Link
Sinha v. Univ. of Kentucky 61.872 Former medical resident student did not established that a university’s initial decision to withhold records from her was done willfully, particularly when there was evidence that university officials were not aware that the other documents existed, and once they learned of the other records, they produced them to the student; also the student could not recover attorney’s fees and other expenses after filing a lawsuit to obtain the documents. Shyamashree Sinha v. Univ. of Ky., 284 S.W.3d 159, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). Link
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.