Crouch v. Jefferson County, Kentucky Police Merit Bd., No. 86-SC-521-DG
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
| Writing for the Court | STEPHENS |
| Citation | 773 S.W.2d 461 |
| Parties | Bobby G. CROUCH, in his official capacity as Chief of the Jefferson County, Kentucky Police Department, Movant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY POLICE MERIT BOARD and John A. Rogers, Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 86-SC-521-DG |
| Decision Date | 08 September 1988 |
Page 461
Jefferson County, Kentucky Police Department,
Movant,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY POLICE MERIT BOARD and John A.
Rogers, Respondents.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 8, 1989.
Page 462
William T. Warner, Conliffe, Sandmann, Gorman & Sullivan, Louisville, for movant.
Larry C. Ethridge, C. David Johnstone, Louisville, for respondents.
STEPHENS, Chief Justice.
The issues to be decided by this appeal are whether the de novo review of Brady v. Pettit, Ky., 586 S.W.2d 29 (1979), and City of Henderson Civil Service Commission v. Zubi, Ky., 631 S.W.2d 632 (1982), applies to KRS 78.455, and if so, to what is the extent of that review.
We hold that the Brady and Zubi standard of de novo review applies in all public employee discharge cases. The circuit court shall review administrative decisions by reviewing the record, briefs and any other evidence relevant to the narrow issue of arbitrariness in the discharge of an employee.
On November 30, 1976, Police Officer John Rogers was discharged by the Jefferson County Police Chief, pending resolution of criminal charges against him. He was accused of misconduct which included, among other offenses, driving under the influence. Rogers was granted a hearing by the Jefferson County Police Merit Board on January 27, 1981. 1 The Board then reversed his dismissal, holding that it was unjustified and unsupported by proper evidence. Although the Chairman of the Merit Board ruled that the issue of disparate treatment was not properly before them, he allowed the Jefferson County Police Chief to be questioned as to whether Rogers' discharge was a disproportionate penalty compared to a civilian employee charged with the same offense. Counsel challenged the Chief's credibility by questioning him as to less severe disciplinary actions taken with regard to other officers' alcohol-related accidents. Nevertheless, the impeachment evidence in this case was presumably not available for substantive consideration by the Board. The police chief appealed, and the Jefferson Circuit Court reversed the decision of the Board, holding that the Board's action was clearly erroneous, being based on sympathy, and not substantive evidence. Finally, the court ruled that Brady v. Pettit does not apply to an appeal pursuant to KRS 78.455, and a completely new trial with new evidence should be held before the circuit court. Rogers appealed this decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which reversed the circuit court and held that it was error to find that the Board's decision was not supported by the evidence presented. They found that it was improper for the circuit court to invade the mental processes of the Board members and second-guess whether the evidence presented at the hearing was persuasive. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals ruled that there is no distinction between the de novo statute at issue in this case, KRS 78.455, and the review statute in Brady v. Pettit.
Bobby Crouch, as chief of the Jefferson County Police Department, moved for discretionary review to this court, and we affirm the Court of Appeals in part and reverse in part.
Appellant argues that the Brady v. Pettit and City of Henderson Civil Service Commission v. Zubi cases should apply to all public employee discharge cases in Kentucky which involve similar "de novo" appeal statutes. In Brady, we were called upon to construe the meaning of KRS 67A.290, which provides in pertinent part:
(1) Any employe of the urban-county government found guilty by the civil service commission of any charge as provided by KRS 67A.280 or any action upheld under subsection (7) of the said section, or any amendment thereto, may appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the urban-county government is located
Page 463
within thirty (30) days after such action becomes final, but the enforcement of the judgment of the civil service commission shall not be suspended pending appeal.(2) Upon request in writing by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Troy Twp., 28008
...349, 353–54 (1998) ; Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739, 748–49 (2009) ; Crouch v. Jefferson Cty., Ky. Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461, 462–63 (Ky. 1988) ; Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp., 274 Md. 211, 334 A.2d 514, 522–23 (1975) ; Langvardt v. Horton, 2......
-
State v. Madison, No. 95-046
...a restricted meaning only in the administrative law context as the result of constitutional constraints. Cf. Crouch v. Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Ky.1988) (holding that, because of separation-of-powers constraints, statutory language giving discharged public employee right to "b......
-
Prater v. Com., No. 2000-SC-0279-DG.
...of children committed to CHR custody constituted unconstitutional exercise of executive power); Crouch v. Police Merit Board, Ky., 773 S.W.2d 461 (1989) (de novo review of case involving discharge of public employee violates separation of powers); Vaughn v. Knopf, Ky., 895 S.W.2d 566 (1995)......
-
Moore v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't, 2020-CA-1296-MR
...briefs, and any other 5 evidence relevant to the specific, limited issues on appeal. Crouch v. Jefferson Cty., Kentucky Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461, 464 (Ky. 1988). Such review does not involve a retrial of the merits. Id. However, "[a] reviewing court does not have the authority to re......
-
State v. Troy Twp., 28008
...349, 353–54 (1998) ; Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739, 748–49 (2009) ; Crouch v. Jefferson Cty., Ky. Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461, 462–63 (Ky. 1988) ; Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp., 274 Md. 211, 334 A.2d 514, 522–23 (1975) ; Langvardt v. Horton, 2......
-
State v. Madison, No. 95-046
...a restricted meaning only in the administrative law context as the result of constitutional constraints. Cf. Crouch v. Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Ky.1988) (holding that, because of separation-of-powers constraints, statutory language giving discharged public employee right to "b......
-
Prater v. Com., No. 2000-SC-0279-DG.
...of children committed to CHR custody constituted unconstitutional exercise of executive power); Crouch v. Police Merit Board, Ky., 773 S.W.2d 461 (1989) (de novo review of case involving discharge of public employee violates separation of powers); Vaughn v. Knopf, Ky., 895 S.W.2d 566 (1995)......
-
Moore v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Gov't, 2020-CA-1296-MR
...briefs, and any other 5 evidence relevant to the specific, limited issues on appeal. Crouch v. Jefferson Cty., Kentucky Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461, 464 (Ky. 1988). Such review does not involve a retrial of the merits. Id. However, "[a] reviewing court does not have the authority to re......