Background
Ron Anthony worked for the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC) beginning in 2005 and was promoted to Sergeant in 2019. He claims that after he recommended the removal of subordinate officer Ebony Johnson from a field training program for contraband protocol violations, she retaliated by accusing him of sexual assault and recruiting three other female officers to file similar complaints. A Professional Standards Unit (PSU) investigation commenced in October 2019 following the complaints.
During the PSU investigation, Anthony denied the assault allegations but admitted to having consensual sexual intercourse with Johnson in a jail control room while on duty. He also disclosed, through an undated and unsigned letter circulated publicly among staff, that he had known since March 2019 that Johnson had been engaged in illegal sexual relationships with inmates — information he had never previously reported despite a mandatory duty to do so under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). LMDC determined the letter was itself retaliatory. Following the investigation, a hearing, and an independent arbitration that upheld the decision, Anthony was terminated in May 2020.
Anthony filed suit in Jefferson Circuit Court alleging his termination violated Kentucky’s Whistleblower Protection Act (KWA), KRS 61.102, on the theory that his letter reporting Johnson’s inmate relationships was the real cause of his discharge. After more than three years of litigation, both parties moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted judgment in LMDC’s favor in August 2025, and Anthony appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for LMDC on all KWA elements in dispute. First, the court held that Anthony’s letter did not constitute a good-faith report as required by KRS 61.102. Applying Thornton v. Office of Fayette County Attorney, 292 S.W.3d 324 (Ky. App. 2009), and Pennyrile Allied Community Services, Inc. v. Rogers, 459 S.W.3d 339 (Ky. 2015), the court found the letter was not intended as a genuine disclosure of a legal violation. Anthony had known of Johnson’s inmate relationships since March 2019 but sat on the information for months, shared it outside proper channels in an unsigned and unsigned document, and circulated it only after learning of the complaints against him. The court concluded the letter was motivated by retaliation against his accusers, not a good-faith effort to correct wrongdoing.
The court further held that, even if the letter were a protected disclosure, Anthony failed to show it was a contributing factor in his termination as required by KRS 61.103(3). The PSU investigation had already been underway before the letter surfaced, and it was that investigation — not the letter — that produced the grounds for termination: Anthony’s own admissions of on-duty sexual intercourse inside the jail’s secure perimeter and undisputed evidence of sexual harassment of subordinates, including graphic text messages. The court found no genuine issue of material fact that the letter played any role in the decision to terminate.
Key Takeaways
- A report is not made “in good faith” under the KWA if the employee delayed disclosure for months, violated required reporting channels, and made the report only after becoming aware of adverse complaints — circumstances that indicate retaliation rather than a genuine intent to expose wrongdoing.
- Under Pennyrile, the KWA does not protect disclosures whose gravamen is a personal grievance rather than an intended report of a legal violation to someone in a position to act on it.
- Reporting PREA violations was part of Anthony’s supervisory duty as a Sergeant; an employee reporting within the scope of job responsibilities may not qualify for whistleblower protection for that report.
- Even where a protected disclosure is assumed, an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the adverse action — uncontroverted evidence of independent, legitimate grounds for termination can defeat that showing at summary judgment.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Kentucky’s Whistleblower Protection Act does not shield employees who weaponize mandatory reporting obligations as a litigation tactic after misconduct investigations are already underway. Courts will look past the label of “whistleblower” to examine the timing, manner, and motive of an alleged disclosure — particularly where an employee had a pre-existing duty to report and failed to do so until facing adverse consequences.
For public-sector employers and corrections agencies specifically, the ruling illustrates that an independent, well-documented basis for termination — supported here by the employee’s own admissions and arbitration — can foreclose a contributing-factor argument and sustain summary judgment even after years of discovery. Defense counsel should build the termination record around verifiable, admitted conduct to insulate adverse employment decisions from whistleblower claims brought as secondary theories.