Opinion ID: 4512610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whistleblower

Text: The district court also granted summary judgment to the County on Harper’s claim under the Kentucky Whistleblower Act. Its conclusion is sound. The KWA protects “employees who possess knowledge of wrongdoing that is concealed or not publicly known, and who step forward to help uncover and disclose that information.” Harper v. Univ. of Louisville, 559 S.W.3d 796, 801 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Davidson v. Com., Dep’t of Military Affairs, 152 S.W.3d 247, 255 (Ky. App. 2004)); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 61.102. To prevail on a whistleblower claim, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) that her employer “is an officer of the state,” (2) that she “is employed by the state,” (3) that she disclosed “a suspected violation of state or local law to an appropriate body or authority,” and (4) that the employer “took action or threatened to take action to discourage [her] from making such a disclosure or to punish [her] for making such a disclosure.” Moss v. Kentucky State Univ., 465 S.W.3d 457, 459 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014). -5- Case No. 19-5475, Harper v. Elder, et al. In dismissing Harper’s KWA cause of action, the court held that she failed to establish the fourth element of her claim: action or threatened action to discourage or punish her for reporting malfeasance. Kentucky courts require that the plaintiff shows that her whistleblowing “was a contributing factor in the . . . action against her,” Thornton v. Office of Fayette Cty. Attorney, 292 S.W.3d 324, 332 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). Harper grounds her KWA claim on reports she made to Conaway that Deputy Jimmy Hernandez spent too much time with female inmates, perhaps (according to Harper) in violation of jail policy and Kentucky law. Following one of Harper’s reports, Conaway screamed at her, “[M]ind your own business, stay out of it, and if you don’t drop it, all hell’s going to break loose.” When Harper described Conaway’s affront to Elder, Elder told Conaway to “fix” the Hernandez problem, but he disregarded Harper’s complaint about Conaway’s treatment of her. Harper maintains that in telling Conaway about Hernandez’s misconduct, she disclosed “a suspected violation of state or local law.” And she alleges that Elder and Conaway punished her for doing so with (1) Conaway berating her for reporting Hernandez, (2) Elder refusing to correct Conaway’s conduct, and (3) Elder “attempt[ing] to force Harper to [the night] shift.” Regarding Conaway’s angry response and Elder’s refusal to prevent it, Harper fails to connect this conduct to her whistleblowing. As Harper testified, Conaway yelled at her “every day.” And Elder allowed it for years. That these events repeated themselves following the whistleblowing does not establish a causal connection between Harper’s reporting and Defendants’ conduct. See Judd v. Univ. of Kentucky, No. 2018-CA-000652-MR, 2019 WL 3851631, at –4 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2019). Elder’s suggestion that Harper switch shifts, even if causally related to her whistleblowing, cannot constitute a materially adverse action because a shift change is not materially adverse -6- Case No. 19-5475, Harper v. Elder, et al. without some reduction in pay, prestige, or responsibility. Amann v. Potter, 105 F. App’x 802, 807–08 (6th Cir. 2004); Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 886–87 (6th Cir. 1996); Jones v. Oldham Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 2009-CA-000350-MR, 2010 WL 1508150, at  (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2010). Yet Harper admits that the night shift work and pay were the same as on the day shift. She protests that shift changes suffice as adverse if they interfere with childcare— relying on Nolen v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., where the plaintiff’s disabled son required around-the-clock care which the plaintiff could not provide if moved to the night shift. No. 3:17cv-182, 2018 WL 6725395, at –2, –6 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2018). Much different than Nolen, Harper complained only that she “didn’t want to have to miss[ her son’s] ball games and be[ing] at home for him [in the] evening.” These facts cannot support a whistleblowing claim.