Court Opinion

ID: 9776570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:39:16.838522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:09.763188
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent.
The Board’s statutory authority to review disciplinary action is not absolute or de novo. The mandate of KRS 90.190(2) is to “investigate and determine the justification” for such disciplinary action. Thus, there is an administrative review on the issue of whether the appointing authority was justified, or whether the appointing authority was arbitrary and unreasonable.
When reviewing whether there was “justification” for a dismissal, the Board can modify the punishment imposed by the appointing authority only if there is evidence, including any new evidence introduced at the hearing before the Board, that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Such a finding is necessary to prevent the Board from substituting its judgment for that of the appointing authority. Absent such a finding, the Board erred in setting aside the dismissal and imposing a thirty-day suspension.
I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
STEPHENS, C.J., and GANT, J., join this dissent.