Madison Cnty. Fiscal Court v. Kentucky Labor Cabinet, 2010–SC–000322–TG.

• Decision Date: 23 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2010–SC–000322–TG.,2010–SC–000322–TG.
• Citation: 18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 747,352 S.W.3d 572
• Parties: MADISON COUNTY FISCAL COURT; Central Campbell County Fire District; City of Cynthiana; City of Danville; City of Florence; City of Georgetown; City of Glasgow; City of Nicholasville; City of Paris; City of Richmond; City Of Somerset; and City of Winchester, Appellants, v. KENTUCKY LABOR CABINET, J.R. Gray in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Michael L. Dixon, In His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Workplace Standards of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Marjorie Arnold, In Her Official Capacity as Program Manager (Eastern), Wage and Hours of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Jerald Adkins, In His Official Capacity As Program Manager (Western), Wage and Hours of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Unnamed Complainants, Individually, Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 747

352 S.W.3d 572

MADISON COUNTY FISCAL COURT; Central Campbell County Fire District; City of Cynthiana; City of Danville; City of Florence; City of Georgetown; City of Glasgow; City of Nicholasville; City of Paris; City of Richmond; City Of Somerset; and City of Winchester, Appellants,

v.KENTUCKY LABOR CABINET, J.R. Gray in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Michael L. Dixon, In His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Workplace Standards of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Marjorie Arnold, In Her Official Capacity as Program Manager (Eastern), Wage and Hours of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Jerald Adkins, In His Official Capacity As Program Manager (Western), Wage and Hours of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet; Unnamed Complainants, Individually, Appellees.

No. 2010–SC–000322–TG.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Aug. 25, 2011.Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 2011.

Douglas L. McSwain, Derrick Thomas Wright, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC, Lexington, KY, for Madison County Fiscal Court; City of Cynthiana, City of Danville; City of Georgetown; City of Nicholasville; City Of Paris; City of Richmond; City of Somerset; and Central Campbell County Fire District.

Douglas L. McSwain, Derrick Thomas Wright, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC, Lexington, KY, Steven Charles Martin, Matthew C. Smith, Ziegler & Schneider, PSC, Covington, KY, for City of Florence; and City of Glasgow.

Douglas L. McSwain, Derrick Thomas Wright, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC, Lexington, KY, William A. Dykeman, Dykeman & Rosenthal, Winchester, KY, for City of Winchester.David Nelson Shattuck, Melissa Jan Williamson, David O'Brien Suetholz, Kentucky Labor Cabinet, Office of General Counsel, Frankfort, KY, for Appellees.Jeffrey C. Mando, Jennifer H. Langen, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC, Covington, KY, for the Kentucky League of Cities (Amicus Curiae).Richard W. Martin, Martin & Vincent, PSC, Ashland, KY, for the City of Ashland (Amicus Curiae).Paul Randall Collins, Hollon & Collins, Hazard, KY, for the City of Hazard (Amicus Curiae).David Lyle Kelly, Denton & Keuler, LLP, Paducah, KY, for the City of Paducah (Amicus Curiae).Opinion of the Court by Justice VENTERS.

Appellants, Madison County Fiscal Court, Central Campbell County Fire District and ten municipal corporations,¹ appeal from a final order of the Franklin Circuit Court that held: 1) that the Kentucky Labor Cabinet had jurisdiction to pursue an administrative agency action against Appellants to collect, on behalf of firefighters employed by Appellants, unpaid overtime compensation; and, 2) that the Appellant municipalities are not cloaked with governmental or sovereign immunity from such claims. Because the potential liability to local governments in this case, and others similarly situated, is a matter of great and immediate public importance, we granted Appellants' motion to transfer this matter from the Court of Appeals, pursuant to CR 74.02(2).

Specifically, Appellants urge this Court to extend the doctrine of governmental immunity to municipal corporations, and thereby overrule the long-standing decision of Haney v. City of Lexington, 386 S.W.2d 738 (Ky.1964) or, in the alternative, to recognize that Appellants, under the circumstances of this case, are agents of the state government entitled to full governmental immunity, or at least qualified official immunity. Finally, Appellants argue that the Labor Cabinet lacks jurisdiction to pursue its claims against Appellants on the grounds that its authority for such actions under KRS Chapter 337, has been superseded by the 2009 amendment of KRS Chapter 95A.

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the Franklin Circuit Court's conclusion that the Labor Cabinet has jurisdiction to assert the claims against Appellants and the Appellant municipalities are not immune from those claims.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1980, the General Assembly established the Professional Firefighters Foundation Program Fund with the stated purpose of upgrading the educational and training standards of local firefighters by offering pay incentives to firefighters whose departments participated in the program. KRS 95A.200. The Fund was to be administered by the Commission on Fire Protection Personnel Standards and Education (Fire Commission). Local governments, including cities and counties with fire departments meeting certain criteria, were invited to participate by entering into a formal agreement with the Fire Commission. Under the agreements, local governments obligated themselves to comply with the requirements of KRS Chapter 95A and administrative regulations, including those that governed the receipt and allocation of the firefighter incentive pay.

For more than two decades prior to 2008, the Labor Cabinet, using its interpretation of the applicable statutes (mainly KRS 337.285), issued regulations to inform the Fire Commission how to calculate the overtime pay owed to firefighters receiving the training incentive money. The Fire Commission instructed the participating local governments to pay the firefighters in accordance with the Labor Cabinet regulations. The record indicates that Appellants complied and paid their firefighters accordingly.

In 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in Commonwealth, Labor Cabinet v. Hasken, 265 S.W.3d 215 (Ky.App.2007), in which it disagreed with the Labor Cabinet's established formula for calculating firefighters' overtime pay. Based upon its interpretation of the applicable statutes, the Court of Appeals compelled a revision of the method for calculating the overtime pay for firefighters receiving the incentive training money. The calculation approved in Hasken is more generous to firefighters than the formula it replaced. As a result, local governments, including Appellants, that had followed the Labor Cabinet regulations had apparently underpaid their firefighters.

To comply with Hasken, the Labor Cabinet revised its regulation for calculating overtime pay for firefighters receiving incentive training pay. It also initiated administrative actions against Appellants on behalf of the firefighters to collect the unpaid portion of overtime pay, using the Hasken formula. Appellants sought to block that effort by filing the action underlying this appeal in the Franklin Circuit Court. Appellants based their claims upon the grounds set forth above.

With the operative facts being essentially undisputed, Appellants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they were immune from suit by the doctrine of governmental or sovereign immunity, and that the Labor Cabinet lacked jurisdiction to compel overtime payment of the funds provided by KRS Chapter 95A. The Franklin Circuit Court denied Appellant's motion for summary judgment in an order made final and appealable.²

Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals and subsequently moved for transfer to this Court. We granted their motion. Appellants' arguments regarding immunity and jurisdictional issues are questions of law to be reviewed de novo. Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. v. Coleman, 239 S.W.3d 49, 53–54 (Ky.2007); Rowan County v. Sloas, 201 S.W.3d 469, 475 (Ky.2006).

APPELLANTS HAVE NO IMMUNITY AGAINST CLAIMS FOR UNPAID WAGES OR OVERTIME PAY

Appellants argue that their participation in the Professional Firefighters Foundation Program Fund renders them agents of the state in carrying out the public policy purposes of the incentive program. As such, Appellants contend they either share the state's sovereign immunity or are cloaked with governmental or qualified official immunity as entities performing a public function. In the alternative, they invite us to extend the doctrine of governmental immunity to municipal corporations by overruling the longstanding decision of Haney, 386 S.W.2d 738.

Our review of this case, however, leads us to conclude that another venture into the realm of governmental and sovereign immunity is unnecessary because the legislature has waived the defense of immunity for claims brought under KRS Chapter 337 to enforce wages, including overtime pay, based upon money earned under the provisions of KRS Chapter 95A.

We begin with the premise, stated in Withers v. University of Kentucky, 939 S.W.2d 340, 346 (Ky.1997), that a waiver of sovereign or governmental immunity will be found only where provided in a statute by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as to leave no room for any other reasonable construction. We then look to the applicable statutes.

KRS 95A.200 expresses the legislative intent with respect to financial incentives for local firefighters, which is to “offer a state monetary supplement for local firefighters while upgrading the education and training standards of such firefighters.” KRS 95A.250(2)(a) currently provides, in pertinent part, “Each qualified professional firefighter, whose local government receives [the incentive training funds], shall receive [the training supplement] from that local government[.]” The earlier version of the statute stated, “Each qualified professional firefighter, whose local government receives [the incentive training funds], shall be paid by that local government [the incentive training supplement][.]” There is no doubt that the General Assembly intended for local governments participating in the Professional Firefighters Foundation Program Fund under KRS Chapter 95A to pay their firefighters the training...