Mitchell prevails over University of Kentucky

Folks, just click the "Report Post" button and report posts by BB62 that are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Let the moderators take care of him.


The "Report Post" button is the triangle button next to the "Blog This Post" button underneath the offender's username.

UnfetteredMight said:

Im with hotrod on this. Not to take away from you other guys who are pounding pavement and office doors, but imo gutshot is one of our champions of liberty in the state of Kentucky.

Although most of my legal knowledge comes from my own studies, he has been there to refine a few things for me because he has been at this a hell of a lot longer than I have.

If you were any kind of honorable man BB62, you would apologize for your rash and unwarranted remarks and then we could think better of you instead of just throwing you in the "A S S H O L E to be ignored" pile.

Click to expand...

You will do and think as you wish.

09jisaac said:

What does it matter what size it is?

Click to expand...

No kidding. When I first read that, my first impression was that he must know gutshot and is ribbing him or something.

Seriously, BB62? You felt the need to post this, why? At least the guy uses proper spelling and grammar. For crying out loud, try to read some of these posts by our budding ee cummings laureates that use neither capitalization, punctuation, nor paragraph breaks, or maybe those whose netspeak mobile-phone chat shorthand is so truncated that it takes several readings to figure out what they said.

And the font isn't even that large. If you didn't already have x amount of posts, I'd have immediately tagged you as a troll. I learned a long time ago that being anal doesn't go far on internet forums.

Edited to add: Gutshot, if you would be so kind as to share with us exactly what size and font you use, I'd be willing to match it in my posts. I say to everyone who posts in the Kentucky forum, let's all change our font and size to whatever gutshot uses. Shoot, with my bifocals, I have to admit, it is easier to read.

Size 4

If you quote Gutshot's posts it will tell you the size.

I particularly like different fonts/sizes/colors as it aids in distinguishing people. I don't know why Guthshot's has to be brought up every couple of weeks.

They way I see it is:
1. It isn't excessive. If he was using an inch per line then I could understand someone's gripe. His font is just larger than the average.
2. He has a legitimate reason for his font choice. Even "because I want to", in my opinion, is legitimate but his is because of the ease of reading.

BB62 said:

You guys are always good for a laugh.

Click to expand...

Gutshot has done more for firearm rights in Ky than anybody on the Ky forum I would say! He is a man that fights the system that removes people rights, even if the entity he is fighting has nothing to do with him. Can you say you have drove all over Ohio fighting local violations, and that you speak before your state legislature to improve EVERYONE'S rights? Gutshot might not be the king, but he is certainly the elder, and a vault of information. I don't know how you do things in Ohio, but here in Ky we respect our elders, especially one that has given his life to fighting for all of kentuckys firearm freedoms.

KYGlockster said:

Gutshot has done more for firearm rights in Ky than anybody on the Ky forum I would say! He is a man that fights the system that removes people rights, even if the entity he is fighting has nothing to do with him. Can you say you have drove all over Ohio fighting local violations, and that you speak before your state legislature to improve EVERYONE'S rights? Gutshot might not be the king, but he is certainly the elder, and a vault of information. I don't know how you do things in Ohio, but here in Ky we respect our elders, especially one that has given his life to fighting for all of kentuckys firearm freedoms.

Click to expand...

+1

[video=youtube;fCVHpnixj88]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVHpnixj88[/video]

Has anyone heard about Michael case in Fayette Co. courthouse? Just wanted to see what damages he got.

This is an employment case

So the focus was on an exception to the at-will employment that covers most terminations.

What was won was the acknowledgement that the termination was against public policy and the worker's complaint can go forward.

The worker is looking for money and either a judge or jury will determine how much he'll get. I don't expect much jingle getting into the pocket of this litigant. He has a large amount of lawyer's fees to pay.

The worker would be lucky to break even in this one. No one is going to give him more than 100K IMO.

I hope he has a contingency contract with his lawyers, otherwise he'll likely be losing money on this one. And if he did, I see about 20-30K actually going into his pocket.

The case is still ongoing. I doubt it will be resolved anytime soon. He should end up with attorney's fees paid by UK and back pay for whatever period he would be entitles to.

gutshot said:

. Now that the winner has been decided, it is very likely that a settlement will be reached before the court makes a decision.

Click to expand...

I would not "jump the gun" in saying "a winner has been decided".

The issue that I see as being a hurdle for the plaintiff to overcome is his previous testimony (in unemployment) that he stored the gun in his armrest & not the glove compartment. That is a big, big issue for the plaintiff (its a killer for his suit).

The plaintiff has the burden of proof.

The university and the plaintiff, in their court pleadings, stated that the gun was in the glove compartment.

Normally, there is a section of an appeal known as "statement of facts" .. I assume that the plaintiff listed there that the gun was in the glove compartment.

The university may have not cared about the armrest v. glove compartment aspect of the case because they focused on another section of the law in their summary judgment (I'm guessing from the appellate court memo linked in this thread).

If he routinely had a gun in the car and only once kept it in his arm rest or elsewhere (other than his glove compartment) then he has a problem; even if not related to the day of his termination. And other defenses are still available (finding our a lie on his employment application, etc..many things can justify a termination after the fact).

Now he'll have to go in court and give testimony that directly contradicts his previous testimony with the unemployment department testimony.

Will this case settling out of court ? hard to say... neither one wants a crap shoot decision... although the university may have the upper hand here if the guard testifies that the gun was in the arm rest as opposed to the glove compartment. If that happens, the plaintiff has just lost his case I think. If the guard testifies "he can't remember" then a settlement may be the result. If the guard says the glove compartment then the plaintiff should be able to take it to trial if he wants or take a more generous settlement (like that will ever happen that an employee turns on his employer).

Just my analysis of the limited facts presented ... and my knowldge that judges & juries lean heavily against plaintiffs in these types of cases. And where they are the most favorable in employment cases, they are more anti-gun.

Here is an original filing regarding the summary judgement .... I don't think that there was a trial...as there usually isn't for most SJ's granted.

http://chaselaw.nku.edu/documents/k...of Kentucky et. al._2010-SC-000762_applee.pdf


The reviewing court simply made the circumstances regarding the termination a wrongful discharge a proper cause of action.

Discovery was not even completed.

We'll see what happens next.

They are continuing with the case toward trial. The most recent order from the judge was to order to parties to proceed with discovery.

garyh9900 said:

They are continuing with the case toward trial. The most recent order from the judge was to order to parties to proceed with discovery.

Click to expand...

Likely means that the guard is not going to testify that the gun was in the glove compartment OR they have other reason(s) to fire him.

I have gone through a wrongful termination suit and trial ... its amazing what employers will make up.

Thx for the update.. this does not detract from the court ruling of this thread though, making the "public policy" termination a cause of action.

gutshot said:

The issue of where the gun was stored is not an issue and can not become an issue. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that. If you read pages 7 and 8 of the Mitchell opinion you will see that the Supreme Court said that KRS 527.020(4) is the controlling statute and the University was prohibited by that statute from firing him for having a gun in his car. Because he had a CCDW it doesn't matter where it was in the car. The University was also prohibited from firing him under KRS 527.020(8), which requires the gun be in the glove compartment. Two members of the court found that Mitchell's firing was wrongful "if the gun was stored in the glove compartment", but admitted the outcome would be the same anyway, the other five found it wrongful under both paragraphs (4) and (8) of KRS 327.020. So, even if it is found to have been stored outside the glove compartment the vote will be 5-2, in the glove compartment 7-0. The 5 Justices in the majority also ruled the termination was wrongful under KRS 237.106 on pages (12) and (13). The two who concurred for different reasons said the university was exempt from that statute. Mitchell wins either way, 5-2 or 7-0.
In the conclusions section, on page 14 it says, "The case is herebv remanded to that court (Fayette Circuit) for proceedings consistent with this opinion." (emphasis is mine) In order to be "consistent with this opinion" the result must be, "wrongful termination" and then determine damages.

Click to expand...

It is one thing when two people are discussing opinions, but when you have laid the facts out for the other poster and he still refuses to understand I guess he never will. It amazes me how people refuse to observe the facts! From his theory, UK does not agree with the SUPREME COURT's ruling so they are just going to say they terminated him for a different reason (even though that would be perjury). I'm glad Mitchell WON this battle and I hope he receives just compensation!

KYGlockster said:

From his theory, UK does not agree with the SUPREME COURT's ruling so they are just going to say they terminated him for a different reason (even though that would be perjury).

Click to expand...

You have learned well grasshopper....sucks doesn't it?

davidmcbeth said:

You have learned well grasshopper....sucks doesn't it?

Click to expand...

They are well passed the point of being able to successfully argue another reason.

garyh9900 said:

They are well passed the point of being able to successfully argue another reason.

Click to expand...

That's what sucks about employment law ... they really aren't ... they can amend their answer or not ... they can bring things fresh up at trial w/o listing it in their answer (hence discovery is needed to be very extensive for the plaintiff seeking out their possible defenses)...

I have not read the complaint and answer to be honest...anyone with a link?

I've been through one .. they will toss up anything and everything and see what will stick.