Federal District Court Judge Joseph Hood dismisses several part of the lawsuit by Michael Duncan against Fletcher administration over his claim of a politically motivated firing.
The claims against the governor were dismissed based upon the defense of executive immunity for his official acts. However, the Plaintiff’s freedom of speech and freedom of association claims can continue to go forward. To that extent, Plaintiff will be seeking to depose the governor as a witness.
Here is the Court's analysis of the executive immunity defense pled by the governor's lawyers:
Governor Fletcher - Executive Immunity
Governor Fletcher argues that he is entitled to executive immunity from Plaintiff’s state law claims. Citing Baker v. Fletcher, 204 S.W.3d 589 (Ky. 2005), Governor Fletcher states that Kentucky’s highest court has recently indicated that the Governor of the Commonwealth holds the same absolute executive immunity for official acts as did the President in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
731 (1982).In Baker, Kentucky’s high court briefly re-visited its opinion in Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) which favorably cited Nixon v. Fitzgerald for the proposition that “a chief executive enjoys absolute immunity for official acts taken while in office.” Baker, 204 S.W.3d at 595 n.16. To the extent that Governor Fletcher was involved in any decision regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, such a decision would have been an official act; therefore, Governor Fletcher is entitled to executive immunity for such acts.
Plaintiff also seeks monetary relief against Fletcher in his individual capacity for allegedly defamatory statements regarding the termination of Plaintiff’s public employment which were made by Governor Fletcher on The Dave Baker Show. While Plaintiff disputes Fletcher’s argument that the comments were official actions for which Fletcher should be granted immunity, the Court finds otherwise. Governor Fletcher was acting in his official capacity when discussing Plaintiff’s termination, which was, and continues to be, a matter of public interest; therefore, Governor Fletcher is entitled to executive immunity against Plaintiff’s state law claims of defamation and false light. Accordingly, Governor Fletcher’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s defamation and false light claims.
Case 3:06-cv-00034-JMH Document 66 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 18 of 19
Click here for Judge Hood's ORDER.
Story from wave3: Judge allows case against Fletcher administration to go forward.
Story from Herald Leader:
A U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday that portions of a federal lawsuit against Gov. Ernie Fletcher and members of his administration can go forward.Though Judge Joseph M. Hood dismissed several parts of the lawsuit filed by Transportation Cabinet member Michael Duncan, Hood said there is an issue over whether Duncan's right to free speech and freedom of association were violated.
Duncan claims he was illegally fired because he supported Democrat Ben Chandler in the 2003 gubernatorial election.
Though Hood said there is "scant" evidence that Duncan was fired for supporting Chandler, "there is sufficient evidence to create genuine issue of material fact regarding the reason for Plaintiff's termination," Hood wrote in his 19-page ORDER.
Comments