Background
Four investigators with Kentucky’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Division filed grievances in November 2021 after a new investigator, William Crider, was hired at a higher salary. The investigators—Michael Nunley, Robert Caudill, Billy Caudill, and Jones Hiatt—were assigned to different “work counties” under state personnel regulations: Whitley, Floyd, Perry, and Fayette, respectively. Crider was assigned to Hopkins County in western Kentucky. Under 101 KAR 2:034 § 1(2), an agency must increase an incumbent employee’s salary to match a new hire’s salary only if four conditions are met, including that the incumbent employee be “in the same work county” as the new hire. Because Crider’s work county differed from all four investigators’, the agency denied salary adjustments. The investigators appealed through the Personnel Board and then to Whitley Circuit Court.
The circuit court ruled that the “work county” requirement was unlawful, unconstitutional, and violated Kentucky’s equal protection clause, finding no rational basis for the salary disparity and characterizing the requirement as an “artificial disqualifier.” The Public Protection Cabinet and Personnel Board appealed, arguing this was impermissible as a “class-of-one” equal protection claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding that class-of-one equal protection claims—where a plaintiff alleges individualized differential treatment without demonstrating membership in a protected class—do not apply in the public employment context. The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s framework from Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008), which established that “the government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign.” The court explained that allowing such claims would “constitutionalize the employee grievance” and force courts to adjudicate countless subjective employment decisions as constitutional matters.
The court found that the “work county” requirement applies uniformly to all merit employees of the Commonwealth and is not limited to these investigators. The regulation considers legitimate factors including similar workloads and cost of living in the same work county. Although investigators occasionally work outside their assigned county, this temporary status does not change the “work county” listed on their Personnel Action Notification form. The court rejected the circuit court’s finding that the term was vague or that the agency used “work county” inconsistently with other terms like “home county” or “work area.”
The court also noted that Kentucky Revised Statute 344.100 permits employers to apply different compensation standards for employees working in different locations under a merit system, provided such differences do not reflect prohibited discrimination based on protected characteristics. The regulation thus survived constitutional scrutiny.
Key Takeaways
- Class-of-one equal protection claims have no application in public employment disputes, even where individualized treatment cannot be justified on their face.
- Government agencies retain broad discretionary authority to make employment decisions, including salary determinations based on work location and other individualized factors, without triggering heightened constitutional review.
- A regulation applying uniformly to all merit employees does not violate equal protection merely because its application results in disparate individual outcomes.
- Kentucky statutory law explicitly permits employers to apply different compensation standards for employees in different locations under a merit-based system.
Why It Matters
This decision safeguards government agencies’ ability to maintain structured pay systems based on legitimate, neutral factors without transforming every employment grievance into a constitutional dispute. The court’s reliance on Engquist reflects a national consensus that permitting class-of-one claims in public employment would overwhelm agencies and courts with litigation, as “any personnel action in which a wronged employee can conjure up a claim of differential treatment will suddenly become the basis for a federal constitutional claim.”
For Kentucky employers and personnel boards, the decision validates pay structures tied to work location and similar geographic factors, provided they apply uniformly across the workforce. It also clarifies that isolated instances of higher-paid new hires do not automatically trigger salary adjustments for existing employees, even when salary differences are significant, so long as the regulatory criteria for adjustment are not satisfied. Employees challenging employment decisions must pursue administrative remedies and statutory protections rather than individual constitutional claims.