Bowling v. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 93-CA-002071-MR

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON
Citation891 S.W.2d 406
PartiesJudy E. BOWLING, Appellant, v. NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CABINET, Phillip J. Shepherd, Appointing Authority; Kentucky Personnel Board; and Tiny Alsip, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 93-CA-002071-MR,93-CA-002071-MR
Decision Date28 October 1994

Page 406

891 S.W.2d 406
Judy E. BOWLING, Appellant,
v.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CABINET,
Phillip J. Shepherd, Appointing Authority;
Kentucky Personnel Board; and Tiny
Alsip, Appellees.
No. 93-CA-002071-MR.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Oct. 28, 1994.
Case Ordered Published by
Court of Appeals Jan. 6, 1995.

Page 407

Paul F. Fauri, Frankfort, for appellant.

H. Gene Taylor, Dept. of Law, Frankfort, for appellees, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet and Phillip Shepherd.

Steven G. Bolton, Frankfort, for appellee, Kentucky Personnel Bd.

Kevin S. Costello, Breeding, McIntyre & Cunning Ham, P.S.C., Lexington, for appellee, Tiny Alsip.

Before HUDDLESTON, JOHNSON and McDONALD, JJ.

OPINION

JOHNSON, Judge:

Judy E. Bowling (Bowling) appeals from the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court overruling a decision of the Kentucky Personnel Board (Board) which ordered the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) to rescind the promotion of appellee Tiny Alsip (Alsip) to the position of administrative secretary and to reopen the selection process for this position. The circuit court held that the Board's order was not supported by substantial evidence in the record and was therefore an arbitrary decision. Since we now reverse the circuit court's ruling, the Board's decision on remand will be reinstated.

On or about August 19, 1991, the Cabinet gave notice of an opening for an administrative secretary in the London regional office of its Department of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement. Three people applied for the position: two employees from the London office (Bowling and Alsip) and an employee of the Transportation Cabinet. The Regional Administrator, James G. Bussell (Bussell), undertook the process of interviewing the applicants and recommending a candidate for the position. Bussell did not interview the Transportation Cabinet employee but instead focused upon Bowling and Alsip, both of whom were already working within his department. On September 16, 1991, Alsip was appointed to the position as administrative secretary. Bowling did not learn of Alsip's appointment until September 27, 1991.

Page 408

Bowling filed a grievance on October 1, 1991, to which Bussell responded as follows:

Upon making my recommendation of adm. secretary, I did give consideration to the qualifications, job performance, conduct [and] seniority of both candidates (Ms. Alsip and Ms. Bowling). I felt that each applicant was well-qualified, had performed their job duties without question, and each illustrates the finest of conducts [and] attitudes. The seniority aspect was my determining factor. Ms. Alsip was employed with the dept. on 1-16-82 and Ms. Bowling on 11-1-82. Therefore, I selected Ms. Alsip over Ms. Bowling because Ms. Alsip has more job-related experience (time) within the dept.

Indeed, Bussell had completed an "Employee Candidate Disposition Form" on August 28, 1991, after Bowling's interview and had placed the form in her personnel file. In answer to the inquiry "Job related reason candidate selected was best qualified", Bussell replied: "Candidate selected had some more job-related experience ("time") within the department."

Bowling appealed the denial of the promotion to the Personnel Board on October 7, 1991, and a hearing was held on December 17, 1991. Testimony and evidence before the hearing officer focused upon the applicability of 101 KAR 1:400, a Personnel Board administrative regulation promulgated under KRS 18A.0751(4)(f). That regulation provides in pertinent part as follows:

(1) Agencies shall give appropriate consideration to an applicant's qualifications, record of performance, conduct and seniority in the selection of an employee for a promotion.

101 KAR 1:400(1). Seniority is defined in KRS 18A.005(30) as "the total number of months of state service." In his findings of fact, the hearing officer determined that the Cabinet, through Bussell, gave appropriate consideration to qualifications, record of performance and conduct in its selection of Alsip for the promotion, but did not give appropriate consideration to seniority.

The hearing officer explained as follows:

Mr. Bussell considered "seniority" as "seniority within his department." While job knowledge gained over time within his department may be considered by Mr. Bussell under one of the other criteria, it is inappropriate to do such under "seniority" criteria. Mr. Bussell should have determined the "seniority" criteria utilizing the definition of "seniority" as defined in KRS Chapter 18A, specifically, the "total months of state service", that is, the total number of months each applicant has been employed in state government, not just within his department.

The hearing officer noted that at the time the promotion to the position of administrative secretary was offered, Bowling had accumulated a total of 186 months of state service, while Alsip had 107 months. However, within the department, Alsip commenced her employment on January 16, 1982, and Bowling followed almost nine and a half months later on November 1, 1982. Yet during the approximate nine-year period that both Alsip and Bowling worked for the department, Alsip was a seasonal and temporary employee in the beginning and thus had several short breaks in employment. As a result, the actual difference in monthly service within the department amounted to four months more service by Alsip than Bowling over the nine-year period.

These findings of fact and the hearing officer's recommended order were entered on December 20, 1991, and were subsequently adopted by the Personnel Board as its final decision. The final decision held that the promotion of Alsip to the position of administrative secretary be rescinded because the Cabinet failed to give appropriate consideration to seniority under 101 KAR 1:400(1) in its selection and ordered the Cabinet to open a new search for the position, giving appropriate consideration to each applicant's qualifications, record of performance, conduct and seniority, with seniority to be based on total time spent in state service.

Bowling, Alsip, and the Cabinet appealed the final order of the Board to the Franklin Circuit Court. Bowling in her appeal sought to obtain the additional relief from the Board of being placed in the administrative secretary position or a like position and to receive

Page 409

appropriate compensation from the time Alsip was placed in the position. The Cabinet and Alsip filed petitions with the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
203 cases
  • God's Center v. Lexington Fayette Urban, 2001-CA-000982-MR.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • November 8, 2002
    ...v. Taub, Ky., 766 S.W.2d 49 (1988); and CR 52.01. 20. Id. 21. Bowling v. Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet, Ky.App., 891 S.W.2d 406, 409 (1994)(citing Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (1972); and Blankenship v. Lloyd Blankenship Coal Co......
  • Moore v. Asente, 2000-SC-1127-DG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • June 12, 2003
    ...jointly introduced documents and Urella's own testimony."); Bowling v. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Ky.App., 891 S.W.2d 406 63. CR 52.01 64. Bowling v. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, supra note 62. 65. PHILIPPS, supra note 55 at Rule 52.01......
  • Simmons v. Commonwealth, 2021-CA-0859-MR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • December 9, 2022
    ...the mind of a reasonable person.'" Hunter v. Mena, 302 S.W.3d 93, 97 (Ky. App. 2010) (citing Bowling v. Nat. Res. & Env't Prot. Cabinet, 891 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Ky. App. 1994)). However, the appellate court conducts a de novo review of the trial court's application of law to its factual findin......
  • Hill v. Commonwealth, 2014-CA-001130-MR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • December 18, 2015
    ...arbitrary.Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. Bowens, 281 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Ky. 2009) quoting Bowling v. Nat. Resources & Environmental Protection Cab., 891 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Ky. App. 1994). Hill first argues that WellCare's NOA was deficient, and consequently, the Secretary should have automatically grant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT