Court Opinion

ID: 9664339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:14:50.442916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:04.962152
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I interpret KRS 241.140 to be of sufficient breadth to grant the Metro Government jurisdiction to adopt an Ordinance that allows imposition of civil fines upon employees of licensees. The Ordinance at issue qualifies as a regulation and is certainly no less stringent than other regulations of the state ABC Board. There is no express pre-emption of this type of Ordinance in any of the governing statutes and there is no inconsistency with the penal provisions of KRS 244.080. In City of Louisville v. Michael A. Woods, Inc.,1 the Court of Appeals held that a city may pass ordinances in addition to, but that are not inconsistent with, state statutes and constitutional provisions.2
It is not necessary for the state statutes to provide clear enabling authority on this issue. This Court has noted that “there is much room for the exercise of police power, and the state has encouraged and somewhat required local government to *652participate in and provide regulation for control.”3 Simply because the General Assembly has not by statutory enactment adopted specific language whereby the local ABC administrator can levy civil fines upon non-licensees, such a regulation is not prohibited provided that it is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme codified in KRS Chapter 241 through Chapter 244.
A reasonable extension of our holding in Commonwealth v. White4 supports the view that an employee of a licensee may be subjected to the jurisdiction of the local ABC administrator pursuant to a local ordinance. Our holding in White further supports that the statutory scheme provides the state ABC Board and local authorities with jurisdiction and the authority to enact regulations over non-licensee employees. The majority does not dispute that KRS 244.080 is broad enough to include employees of licensees, a fact confirmed by our holding in White. However, the majority distinguishes this case on the grounds that the General Assembly did not provide non-licensees with any appellate review of a decision by the Board.
The absence of an express right of appeal is not dispositive of that question in administrative proceedings. American Beauty Homes Corporation v. Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission5 amounts to settled law that a right of review exists despite the absence of an express provision to that effect:6
Basically, judicial review of administrative action is concerned with the question of arbitrariness. On this ground the courts will assume jurisdiction even in the absence of statutory authorization of an appeal.... There is an inherent right of appeal from orders of administrative agencies where constitutional rights are involved, and section (2) of the Constitution prohibits the exercise of arbitrary power.
[[Image here]]
In the interest of fairness, a party to be affected by an administrative order is entitled to procedural due process.... Administrative proceedings affecting a party’s rights which did not afford an opportunity to be heard could likewise be classified as arbitrary.7
The majority opinion threatens to undermine an established and efficient local Ordinance that addresses the recurring problem of underage sales of alcohol to minors by employees of licensed establishments. By creating personal liability on the employee, it also serves to prevent those employees from changing jobs and selling alcohol at other licensed establishments. The Ordinance is of great benefit in both its preventative posture as well as its efficient, inexpensive, and fair adjudication of such disputes without resorting to the Court of Justice.
KELLER and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.

. Ky., 883 S.W.2d 881, 883 (1993).

. Id. See KRS 67.083(3)(n).

. Commonwealth v. Do, Inc., Ky., 674 S.W.2d 519, 522 (1984).

. Ky., 3 S.W.3d 353 (1999).

. Ky., 379 S.W.2d 450 (1964).

. Id. at 456.

. Id.