Opinion ID: 1799262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 207 260. Right of actionRecovery for each violation.

Text: (1) Any person aggrieved by a violation of KRS 207.135, 207.150, 207.160, or 304.12-013 shall have a right of action in District Court and may recover for each violation: (a) Against any person who violates a provision of this section, liquidated damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or actual damages, whichever is greater. (b) Against any person who intentionally or recklessly violates a provision of this section, liquidated damages of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or actual damages, whichever is greater. (c) Reasonable attorney's fees. (d) Such other relief, including an injunction, as the court shall deem appropriate. (2) Nothing in this section limits the right of the person aggrieved by a violation of this section to recover damages or other relief under any other applicable law. (Emphasis added.) Hardaway cites Strader v. Commonwealth, 302 Ky. 330, 194 S.W.2d 368 (1946) for the proposition that in the event of a conflict between two statutes, the last statute enacted must prevail. However, it is also a maxim of statutory construction that Repeal by implication is not favored and will not be upheld unless such an intention clearly appears or unless the repugnancy is so clear as to admit of no other reasonable construction. City of Eddyville v. City of Kuttawa, Ky., 343 S.W.2d 404, 406 (1961); see also Demunbrun v. Browning, 311 Ky. 71, 223 S.W.2d 372 (1949). Hardaway's argument fails for two reasons. First, KRS 207.260(2) clearly provides that the provisions of that statute do not preclude an aggrieved person from recovering damages or relief under any other applicable law, which presumably would include KRS 207.230(1). Otherwise, that person's right to recover damages would be restricted to the jurisdictional limits of the district court, KRS 24A.120(1), regardless of his or her actual damages. Second, KRS 446.130 instructs that in construing statutes which contain an apparent conflict, reference may be had to the acts of the General Assembly from which the sections were derived. KRS 207.260 was enacted as section 51 of chapter 443 of the 1990 Kentucky Acts. Chapter 443 was entitled An Act relating to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Section 1 of that chapter, now codified as KRS 214.600, contains a lengthy statement of legislative intent, which includes the following: The General Assembly finds the unique methods of transmission of this disease, and its inevitably fatal course, have raised public fears; changed the attitudes of employers, insurers, educators, law enforcement personnel, and health and medical providers about dealing with the disease; and could unexpectedly raise the medical costs of this state. The General Assembly intends to establish programs and requirements related to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome which carefully balance medical necessity, the right to privacy, and protection of the public from harm and which establish public programs for the care and treatment of persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and related conditions. Chapter 443 of the 1990 Kentucky Acts consisted of sixty five (65) sections relating to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Section 51 was codified as KRS 207.260. Section 52 amended KRS 207.150 to proscribe employment discrimination on the basis of the results of a human immunodeficiency virus-related test, subject to certain exceptions. Subsection (1) of section 51 provided that Any person aggrieved by a violation of Sections 49, 52, 53 or 54 of this Act shall have a right of action in District Court . . . . From this legislative history, it is clear that KRS 207.260 was enacted to provide relief for persons discriminated against for AIDS-related reasons and not to repeal or otherwise affect the existing right of action created by KRS 207.230. The Butler Circuit Court was the appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring this action.