Cabinet for Families & Children v. Cummings
Kentucky Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part 1
Opinion by
2Concurring in part, dissenting in part · CooperJustice Cooper
I concur in the majority opinion’s conclusion that Dr. Cummings was an “employee” of the Cabinet for Families and Children as that term is defined in KRS 61.101(1). However, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that individual policy-makers and managerial supervisors of so-called “whistleblowers” are not included within the definition of “employer” as that term is defined in KRS 61.101(2). The statutory language pertinent to this issue is as follows:
KRS 61.101.
[[Image here]](2) “Employer” means the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any of its political subdivisions. Employer…
3Cases cited19 opinions
- Carole Tomka v. The Seiler Corporation, Daniel Lucey, David Polonsky and Timothy ConroyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Phyllis Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc., Dba Maxwell's Plum, Debtor in Possession Carlo Galazzo, Gen. Mgt., Dino La Rosa Don Bohn Don SchupakCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Judy G. Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court John W. Black, County Judge/executive Brent LikinsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Reno v. BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.