Aubrey v. Office of the Attorney General, 1997-CA-002648-MR
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
| Writing for the Court | Knopf, Judge |
| Citation | 994 S.W.2d 516 |
| Parties | MARY J. AUBREY, DEVEN D. BROWN, BETTY J. BURGESS, SHIRLEY D. CLARK, DEBBIE S. CURTSINGER, WILMA P. HIPPE, JANA L. HUDNALL, BEVERLY A. PENNINGTON, PAMELA J. POE, MELINDA D. ROGERS, AND TERRI L. SORRELL, APPELLANTS v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL A.B. CHANDLER III, APPOINTING AUTHORITY; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY PERSONNEL BOARD, APPELLEES |
| Docket Number | 1997-CA-002648-MR |
| Decision Date | 23 October 1998 |
|
|
|
| [2] | v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL A.B. CHANDLER III, APPOINTING AUTHORITY; COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY PERSONNEL BOARD, APPELLEES |
| [3] | |
| [4] | |
| [5] | |
| [6] | |
| [7] | Before: Huddleston, Knopf, And Miller, Judges. |
| [8] | Brief And Oral Argument For Appellants Donald Duff Frankfort, Kentucky Brief And Oral Argument For Appellees Barbara Maggio Pauley Special Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Services Frankfort, Kentucky |
| [9] | The opinion of the court was delivered by: Knopf, Judge |
| [10] | ORDERED PUBLISHED: June 11, 1999; 2:00 p.m. |
| [11] | Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court Of Appeals |
| [12] | OPINION AFFIRMING |
| [13] | This is an appeal from an order of the Franklin Circuit Court reversing a ruling of the Kentucky Personnel Board and reinstating the decision of the hearing officer. Finding no error, we affirm. |
| [14] | The underlying facts of this action are not in dispute. Each of the individual appellants is a classified employee with status in the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). They are all classified as Legal Secretary, Senior, Grade 10, except Devon Brown, who is a Legal Secretary, Grade 9. On December 16, 1990, the Legal Secretary class was reevaluated and upgraded by the Commissioner of Personnel through a class grade change within the entire structure of state government. The OAG did not authorize pay increases to the Legal Secretary class as a result of this class grade change. |
| [15] | In August 1995, the OAG requested a five (5) percent increase adjustment for Jane C. Hosley, a Legal Secretary, Senior. (Hosley is not a party to this action). The basis of this request, which was approved by the Commissioner, was 101 Ky. Admin. Regs. [KAR] 2:036 § 3(8). Subsequently, the appellants learned of Ms. Hosley's increase through an open records request made in November 1995. Each of the appellants appealed to the Personnel Board, claiming that she suffered a continuing "penalization" for not receiving a similar increase. The appellants contend that the application of the pay increase to one (1) individual in the legal secretary class violated 101 KAR 2:036 § 3(7). |
| [16] | The claims were consolidated into one action, and an evidentiary hearing was held before a hearing officer with the Kentucky Personnel Board. The hearing officer found that the increase was proper, and recommended that the appeals be dismissed. The Personnel Board reversed, deleting several of the hearing officer's Conclusions of law and substituting its own. The Board found that the request for a pay increase for Hosley was a "circumvention" of the requirement that all increases be uniform within the agency. The Board concluded that § 3(7) prevailed over § 3(8). |
| [17] | The OAG filed an appeal to the Franklin Circuit Court, pursuant to KRS 18A.100 and KRS 13B.140. The circuit court reversed the Board and reinstated the findings made by the hearing officer. After discussing the appropriate standard of review, the lower court found the Board's finding was unsupported by the evidence. The circuit court concluded that § 3(7) did not modify or repeal § 3(8), and that the OAG followed the correct procedures under § 3(8) to give Hosley a pay adjustment. In response to the appellants' motion to reconsider, the circuit court stated, "Here, it is possible to conclude that § 3(7) is intended |
To continue reading
Request your trial
123 practice notes
-
Marksberry v. Chandler, No. 2002-CA-001920-MR.
...25. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Revenue Cabinet, Ky.App., 40 S.W.3d 883 (2001); Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, Ky.App., 994 S.W.2d 516, 520 (1998) (quoting Revenue Cabinet v. Gaba, Ky.App., 885 S.W.2d 706, 707 26. Id.; Combs v. Hubb Coal Corp., Ky., 934 S.W.2d 250, 252-53 (1996). 27.......
-
Louisville-Jefferson County v. Martin, No. 2007-CA-001629-MR (Ky. App. 6/12/2009), No. 2007-CA-001629-MR.
...also A & A Mechanical, Inc. v. Thermal Equipment Sales, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Ky. App. 1999); Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, 994 S.W.2d 516, 518-19 (Ky. App. 1998); and Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Ky. App. 1998). Pursuant to the holding in Upchurch, id., the jury shoul......
-
Albarado v. Kentucky Racing Com'n, No. Civ.A.3:04CV-231-H.
...to substitute its own judgment as to the proper interpretation of the agency's regulations. See Aubrey v. Office of the Attorney General, 994 S.W.2d 516 (Ky.App.1998). It is not the Court's intention to do so. In fact, no one disputes the meaning of the regulation. It prohibits all advertis......
-
Marksberry v. Chandler, No. 2002-CA-001920-MR (Ky. App. 1/30/2004), No. 2002-CA-001920-MR.
...Pa. 1996). 25. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Revenue Cabinet, Ky.App., 40 S.W.3d 883 (2001); Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, Ky.App., 994 S.W.2d 516, 520 (1998) (quoting Revenue Cabinet v. Gaba, Ky.App., 885 S.W.2d 706, 707 26. Id.; Combs v. Hubb Coal Corp., Ky., 934 S.W.2d 250, 252-53 ......
Request a trial to view additional results
123 cases
-
Marksberry v. Chandler, No. 2002-CA-001920-MR.
...25. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Revenue Cabinet, Ky.App., 40 S.W.3d 883 (2001); Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, Ky.App., 994 S.W.2d 516, 520 (1998) (quoting Revenue Cabinet v. Gaba, Ky.App., 885 S.W.2d 706, 707 26. Id.; Combs v. Hubb Coal Corp., Ky., 934 S.W.2d 250, 252-53 (1996). 27.......
-
Louisville-Jefferson County v. Martin, No. 2007-CA-001629-MR (Ky. App. 6/12/2009), No. 2007-CA-001629-MR.
...also A & A Mechanical, Inc. v. Thermal Equipment Sales, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Ky. App. 1999); Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, 994 S.W.2d 516, 518-19 (Ky. App. 1998); and Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Ky. App. 1998). Pursuant to the holding in Upchurch, id., the jury shoul......
-
Albarado v. Kentucky Racing Com'n, No. Civ.A.3:04CV-231-H.
...to substitute its own judgment as to the proper interpretation of the agency's regulations. See Aubrey v. Office of the Attorney General, 994 S.W.2d 516 (Ky.App.1998). It is not the Court's intention to do so. In fact, no one disputes the meaning of the regulation. It prohibits all advertis......
-
Marksberry v. Chandler, No. 2002-CA-001920-MR (Ky. App. 1/30/2004), No. 2002-CA-001920-MR.
...Pa. 1996). 25. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Revenue Cabinet, Ky.App., 40 S.W.3d 883 (2001); Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, Ky.App., 994 S.W.2d 516, 520 (1998) (quoting Revenue Cabinet v. Gaba, Ky.App., 885 S.W.2d 706, 707 26. Id.; Combs v. Hubb Coal Corp., Ky., 934 S.W.2d 250, 252-53 ......
Request a trial to view additional results