Court Opinion

ID: 9961627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:07:47.265904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:13.295934
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 12, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

               Commonwealth of Kentucky
                        Court of Appeals
                           NO. 2023-CA-0401-MR

LESLIE WARDEN CARR                                              APPELLANT

               APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
v.          HONORABLE JANET J. CROCKER, SPECIAL JUDGE
                      ACTION NO. 18-CI-01518

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
JUDICIAL BRANCH,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS; AND CATHERINE RICE
HOLDERFIELD, IN HER
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS
JUDGE OF THE WARREN CIRCUIT
COURT, 8TH CIRCUIT, DIVISION IV,
FAMILY COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                         APPELLEES

                                 OPINION
                                AFFIRMING

                                ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; GOODWINE AND TAYLOR,
JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Leslie Warden Carr appeals from orders of the

Warren Circuit Court which granted summary judgment in favor of Judge
Catherine Holderfield and dismissed the Administrative Office of the Courts

(AOC) from the case. Finding no error, we affirm.

                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             Appellant worked as a court administrator for Judge Holderfield from

about September 16, 2017, to September 4, 2018. She resigned from her position

to take a job with a law firm. On November 2, 2018, Appellant filed a complaint

against Appellees. She raised numerous causes of action, including an allegation

that her employment was constructively terminated in violation of the Kentucky

Whistleblower Act (KWA) found in Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 61.101, et

seq. On December 18, 2019, the AOC was dismissed from the case. On January

12, 2023, summary judgment was granted in favor of Judge Holderfield. This

appeal followed.

                                      ANALYSIS

             We begin our analysis by noting that Appellant has raised no

argument on appeal regarding the AOC’s dismissal. While Appellant appealed the

order dismissing the AOC, her brief focuses solely on Judge Holderfield’s

summary judgment. “Any part of a judgment appealed from that is not briefed is

affirmed as being confessed.” Osborne v. Payne, 31 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Ky. 2000)

(citation omitted). As Appellant has raised no issues regarding the AOC, we

affirm its dismissal from the case.

                                         -2-
              We now move on to the main issue on appeal, the order granting

summary judgment in favor of Judge Holderfield.

                      The standard of review on appeal of a summary
              judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that
              there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and
              that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a
              matter of law. . . . “The record must be viewed in a light
              most favorable to the party opposing the motion for
              summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in
              his favor.” Summary “judgment is only proper where the
              movant shows that the adverse party could not prevail
              under any circumstances.” Consequently, summary
              judgment must be granted “[o]nly when it appears
              impossible for the nonmoving party to produce evidence
              at trial warranting a judgment in his favor[.]”

Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996) (citations omitted).

“Because summary judgment involves only legal questions and the existence of

any disputed material issues of fact, an appellate court need not defer to the trial

court’s decision and will review the issue de novo.” Lewis v. B & R Corporation,

56 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky. App. 2001).

              Appellant’s arguments on appeal only concern the KWA. The KWA

states in pertinent part:

              No employer shall subject to reprisal, or directly or
              indirectly use, or threaten to use, any official authority or
              influence, in any manner whatsoever, which tends to
              discourage, restrain, depress, dissuade, deter, prevent,
              interfere with, coerce, or discriminate against any
              employee who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges,
              or otherwise brings to the attention of the Kentucky
              Legislative Ethics Commission, the Attorney General,

                                           -3-
            the Auditor of Public Accounts, the Executive Branch
            Ethics Commission, the General Assembly of the
            Commonwealth of Kentucky or any of its members or
            employees, the Legislative Research Commission or any
            of its committees, members or employees, the judiciary
            or any member or employee of the judiciary, any law
            enforcement agency or its employees, or any other
            appropriate body or authority, any facts or information
            relative to an actual or suspected violation of any law,
            statute, executive order, administrative regulation,
            mandate, rule, or ordinance of the United States, the
            Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any of its political
            subdivisions, or any facts or information relative to actual
            or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of
            authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
            health or safety.

KRS 61.102(1).

                   In order to demonstrate a violation of KRS 61.102,
            an employee must establish the following four elements:
            (1) the employer is an officer of the state; (2) the
            employee is employed by the state; (3) the employee
            made or attempted to make a good faith report or
            disclosure of a suspected violation of state or local law to
            an appropriate body or authority; and (4) the employer
            took action or threatened to take action to discourage the
            employee from making such a disclosure or to punish the
            employee for making such a disclosure. The employee
            must show by a preponderance of evidence that “the
            disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel
            action.” The burden of proof is then on the state
            employer “to prove by clear and convincing evidence
            that the disclosure was not a material fact in the
            personnel action.”

Davidson v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Military Affairs, 152 S.W.3d 247, 251 (Ky.

App. 2004) (footnotes and citations omitted).

                                        -4-
             We will first note that the trial court found that the first and second

KWA factors were met. While Appellees argue they cannot be deemed

“employers” due to issues surrounding the separation of powers, they did not

appeal the court’s finding regarding whether or not they were employers. For our

purposes, we will accept that the first two KWA factors were met and focus our

attention to the third factor, the reporting or disclosing of a violation of state or

local law to an appropriate authority.

             Here, Appellant raises three instances of where she made a report or

disclosure of a violation of a law or rule in relation to Judge Holderfield. The first

is that Appellant informed another judge and the Warren Circuit Clerk that she

believed Judge Holderfield was violating the Warren Family Court local rules by

refusing to appoint certain attorneys as guardians ad litem in her court. The rule at

issue was Warren Circuit Family Court Rule (WFCR) 704A, which states:

             Guardians ad Litem and military attorneys shall be
             appointed from a panel of attorneys who have registered
             their willingness to accept appointments with the Warren
             Circuit Court Clerk’s Office. See WFCR 604.
             Appointments shall be made in rotation according to the
             register, except in those cases where an emergency
             exists, a member of the panel previously represented the
             party, or special language or communication skills are
             known to be needed for adequate representation of a
             party.

                                           -5-
Appellant claimed that Judge Holderfield violated this rule by refusing to appoint

certain attorneys who were on a list of qualified attorneys and who had been

approved by a Guardian ad Litem Committee. WFCR 604.

             The second instance is that she informed another judge and the

Warren Circuit Clerk that Judge Holderfield violated local rules by refusing to

accept mediation agreements from qualified mediators. The rule at issue is WFCR

707B, which states in relevant part:

             The Chair of the Mediation Review Committee shall be
             selected by the Warren Family Court Judges. The Chair
             shall select additional members if determined to be
             necessary. The mediation review committee shall review
             the qualifications of applicants, ensure compliance with
             the rules of ethics and make recommendations regarding
             the applicants to the Court.

Appellant claimed that Judge Holderfield excluded some qualified mediators from

participating in cases in her court.

             The third instance of a disclosure of an alleged violation of a law or

rule concerns a substance abuse referral list. Appellant claims that she informed

another judge that Janet Carter-Martin was on a list of providers who could provide

a substance abuse assessment; however, Ms. Carter-Martin was allegedly not

qualified to provide such assessments. Appellant informed the other judge that

Judge Holderfield continued to utilize Ms. Carter-Martin as an assessor even

though Judge Holderfield knew Ms. Carter-Martin was unqualified.

                                         -6-
             We begin our discussion of Appellant’s alleged whistleblower activity

with the guardian ad litem list. The trial court found that the Guardian ad Litem

Committee would revise the list of qualified attorneys each year. Judges would

then make appointments from the list on a rotation basis and without any material

deviation. Judge Holderfield, however, would not appoint some attorneys on the

list regardless of his or her qualifications. Appellant believed this was improper

favoritism. Judge Holderfield claimed she excluded attorneys who had a history of

not showing up for hearings. Judge Holderfield also believed that a smaller

guardian ad litem roster would provide more appointments per attorney and would

create a financial incentive for attorneys to appear for hearings.

             The court held that Appellant did not make a protected disclosure

because Judge Holderfield’s actions regarding the guardian ad litem list were

widely known. “[T]he ‘disclosure’ of information which is public information or

otherwise already widely known within the organization cannot qualify as a

whistleblower disclosure. The statute protects the whistleblower who exposes

information not generally known.” Harper v. University of Louisville, 559 S.W.3d

796, 802 (Ky. 2018) (citation omitted). Here, Judge Holderfield’s limited use of

the guardian ad litem list began prior to Appellant’s employment. As such, the

following people knew of Judge Holderfield’s use of the list: some members of

the staff in the Warren Circuit Clerk’s office, the Warren Circuit Clerk, Judge

                                          -7-
Holderfield’s prior administrative assistants, the Guardian ad Litem Committee

members, and some Warren County attorneys.

             We agree with the trial court’s conclusion on this issue. While the

public at large may not have known about how Judge Holderfield used the

guardian ad litem list, we believe that enough people in the Warren County legal

community and Warren Circuit Courthouse knew so as to make the issue

“generally known.” As it was generally known within the Warren County legal

community, Appellant cannot meet the third requirement to maintain an action for

the violation of the KWA.

             We now move on to Judge Holderfield’s alleged refusal to accept

mediation settlements from qualified mediators. Appellant alleged that Judge

Holderfield had personal animus toward a person qualified to perform mediation

settlements, but refused to allow this person to serve as a mediator in any of her

cases. The trial court found that Appellant provided no evidence to substantiate

this allegation. After reviewing the record, we agree. There is no evidence that

Judge Holderfield refused to accept a mediation agreement from this particular

individual or that Judge Holderfield otherwise excluded this person from

participating in mediations. Courts of the Commonwealth have “often stated that

speculation and supposition are insufficient to justify a submission of a case to the

jury, and that the question should be taken from the jury when the evidence is so

                                         -8-
unsatisfactory as to require a resort to surmise and speculation.” O’Bryan v. Cave,

202 S.W.3d 585, 588 (Ky. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

             In addition, we agree with Judge Holderfield’s argument that WFCR

707B, the mediation rule cited above, is not a “law, statute, executive order,

administrative regulation, mandate, rule, or ordinance” or related to

“mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific

danger to public health or safety” as required to be a KWA violation. KRS

61.102(1). WFCR 707B allows the Mediation Review Committee to determine

who is qualified to be a mediator in Warren Family Court and then make

recommendations to the judges. It does not have any requirement that the judges

follow those recommendations in any sort of order or, for that matter, follow the

recommendations at all. The trial court made no error on this issue.

             Finally, we address Appellant’s claim that Judge Holderfield

continued to use Janet Carter-Martin to perform substance abuse assessments even

though she was not qualified. Appellant received a phone call from Ms. Carter-

Martin’s former business partner claiming Ms. Carter-Martin was not qualified to

perform substance abuse assessments. Appellant sent an email to Judge

Holderfield and another family court judge of this information. The other judge

informed Appellant to stop making referrals to Ms. Carter-Martin; however, Judge

Holderfield continued to utilize Ms. Carter-Martin’s services.

                                         -9-
             The trial court found that this was simply a disagreement about Ms.

Carter-Martin’s qualifications and not a protected disclosure. We agree. After

reviewing the record in this case, along with the depositions given by the parties

and the witnesses, we conclude there was no protected disclosure here. Appellant

informed Judge Holderfield and another judge that she believed Ms. Carter-Martin

was not qualified to provide substance abuse assessments. Judge Holderfield

believed otherwise and continued using Ms. Carter-Martin’s services. Appellant

cites to no evidence in the record, and we could find none, that she then informed

the other judge, or anyone else, that Judge Holderfield was continuing to utilize an

unqualified substance abuse assessment provider.

             This appears to be a disagreement over whether Ms. Carter-Martin

was qualified to perform drug abuse assessments. “[D]isagreements with

supervisors over job-related activities are commonplace and do not constitute

whistleblowing.” Moss v. Kentucky State University, 465 S.W.3d 457, 460 (Ky.

App. 2014) (citation omitted). Without some affirmative evidence that Appellant

informed another authority that she believed Judge Holderfield was knowingly

using an unqualified assessor, summary judgment was properly granted as to this

issue. See Godman v. City of Fort Wright, 234 S.W.3d 362, 370 (Ky. App. 2007).

                                        -10-
                                 CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in

granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
                                          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
Thomas E. Clay                            THE COURTS:
Louisville, Kentucky
                                          Melissa Norman Bork
Dixie R. Satterfield                      Brent R. Baughman
Harlan E. Judd, III                       Louisville, Kentucky
Bowling Green, Kentucky
                                          BRIEF FOR APPELLEE JUDGE
                                          CATHERINE RICE HOLDERFIELD:

                                          Matthew F. Kuhn
                                          Marc Manley
                                          Alexander Y. Magera
                                          Frankfort, Kentucky

                                       -11-