Legal Opinion

Cabinet for Families & Children v. Cummings

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 2005No. 2002-SC-0788-DG, 2002-SC-0791-DG, 2003-SC-0456-DGPublished

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

  1. Carole Tomka v. The Seiler Corporation, Daniel Lucey, David Polonsky and Timothy ConroyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  2. 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
  3. Judy G. Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court John W. Black, County Judge/executive Brent LikinsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  4. Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
  5. Reno v. BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API