Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Benningfield v. Pettit Environmental, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided September 16, 2005No. 2004-CA-001632-MRPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJohnson, Judge

I concur with the Majority Opinion’s affirming of the trial court’s summary judgment on Benningfield’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, I respectfully dissent as to the dismissal of his claim for wrongful discharge.

The result of the Majority Opinion turns on its conclusion that Grzyb, supra, “does not require the statute to specify that the remedy provided is exclusive.”2 This reading of Grzyb totally ignores the following critical language:

KRS 344.040 provides that it is “unlawful practice for an employer ... to discharge any individual ... because of such…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lepore v. National Tool and Mfg. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
  2. Gutierrez v. Sundancer Indian Jewelry, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Reed v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Brown v. Diversified Decorative Plastics, LLCCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API