City of Louisville v. Fitzgerald
| Decision Date | 19 December 1978 |
| Citation | 600 S.W.2d 456 |
| Parties | CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al., Movants, v. Marjorie FitzGERALD et al., Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
John T. Fowler, III, Sallie S. Haynes, George S. Schuhmann, Louisville, for movants.
Frank A. Logan, Ben J. Talbott, Jr., Charles D. Greenwell, Louisville, for respondents.
The question here is whether the circuit court correctly construed KRS 90.220(2) to prohibit attendance at a political convention by a person in the classified service of the City of Louisville, Kentucky, who had attained civil service status.
Marjorie FitzGerald is employed by the Louisville and Jefferson County Board of Health. As an employee of that agency, she has civil service status under KRS Ch. 90 and the Rules and Regulations adopted by the Louisville Civil Service Board. In July 1976, while so employed, Mrs. FitzGerald attended the Democratic National Convention at her own expense as a voting delegate. Upon her return she was terminated from her employment for having engaged in political activity prohibited by KRS 90.220(2).
Mrs. FitzGerald appealed her termination to the Louisville Civil Service Board, which reinstated her to employment without back pay. That decision was appealed to the Jefferson Circuit Court by the Louisville-Jefferson County Board of Health and the City of Louisville. The trial court held Mrs. FitzGerald's attendance at the convention violated KRS 90.220(2) and ordered her employment terminated.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court with directions that Mrs. FitzGerald be reinstated to her employment. The City of Louisville and the Louisville Civil Service Board moved this court for discretionary review. That motion was granted.
The City of Louisville and Louisville Civil Service Board contend KRS 90.220 prohibits a civil service employee from becoming a delegate to a national political convention. KRS 90.220(2) provides as follows:
"No person in the classified service, and neither the personnel director nor any member of the board, nor the chief of police, assistant chief of police, chief of fire fighters, or assistant chief of fire fighters, shall, directly or indirectly, give, solicit, receive or remit, any assessment subscription, or contribution, to or for any political party or any candidate for public office, or in any manner be concerned therewith; nor shall any such person be a member of any campaign committee or governing committee of any political organization nor an officer in either; nor shall any such person be an election officer or work at the polls on election day, or participate in the purgation or registration of voters, provided, however, nothing herein shall prevent any such person from freely expressing his or her views as a citizen or from casting his or her vote in any election."
The Rules and Regulations of the Louisville Civil Service Board simply incorporate the language of KRS 90.220(2) without interpreting or clarifying it. See Louisville Civil Service Rule XIV.
The City of Louisville and the Louisville Civil Service Board submit that Mrs. FitzGerald traveled to and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
KY. REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE v. Blevins
...L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947); City of Louisville v. FitzGerald, Ky., 600 S.W.2d 456 (1978). Indeed, such restrictions are deemed necessary in order to ensure that public service is determined by merit and no......
-
State Bd. for Elementary and Secondary Educ. v. Howard
...is expressed in terms that an ordinary person exercising common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with. City of Louisville v. Fitzgerald, Ky., 600 S.W.2d 456 (1978). This Court has previously noted that among the most fundamental of constitutional rights is the right of citizens ......