Background
Hannah Hurt leased an apartment from Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC under an agreement that provided no early-termination rights. After a May 2020 incident involving her romantic partner, Hurt obtained an emergency protective order, vacated the apartment, returned her keys, and gave Anderson a copy of the order. Anderson maintained that the lease remained binding through July 31, 2020, offered Hurt a payment plan, and later sought payment of the remaining rent.
The Lexington-Fayette County Human Rights Commission brought suit on Hurt’s behalf, alleging that Anderson violated KRS 383.300 by refusing to permit early termination and retaliated against Hurt under KRS 383.300 and KRS 344.280 by enforcing the lease and pursuing unpaid rent. The Fayette Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Anderson, property manager Haley Boyd, and collections coordinator Ron Morton, and the Commission appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that KRS 383.300 unambiguously limits its lease-termination remedy to protected tenants who obtain a domestic violence order or an interpersonal protective order. Although recipients of emergency protective orders qualify as protected tenants for the anti-retaliation and lock-change protections in subsections (3) and (4), they are not included in the lease-termination provision of subsection (5). Because Hurt obtained only an emergency protective order, she had no statutory right to terminate the lease early.
The court also held that both retaliation claims failed as a matter of law. Anderson’s refusal to release Hurt from the lease and its collection communications reflected its consistently stated contractual position and ordinary collection practices, not retaliation based on Hurt’s protected status or her contacts with the Commission. Temporal proximity could not establish causation under KRS 344.280 because Anderson’s collection position arose before Hurt’s protected activity and did not materially change afterward.
Key Takeaways
- An emergency protective order does not trigger the early lease-termination remedy in KRS 383.300(5), which applies only to specified domestic violence and interpersonal protective orders.
- Emergency protective order recipients remain protected under KRS 383.300(3) and (4), including provisions addressing landlord retaliation and lock changes.
- Continuing a previously stated, contract-based collection course does not establish retaliation without evidence that the landlord acted because of protected status or protected activity.
Why It Matters
The published decision draws a firm statutory line between temporary emergency orders and the longer-term protective orders required for early lease termination under Kentucky law. Landlords and tenants must look to the particular type of protective order obtained rather than assuming that every “protected tenant” receives every remedy listed in KRS 383.300.
The opinion also underscores that a retaliation claim remains distinct from the underlying discrimination claim, but still requires evidence connecting a materially adverse action to protected activity. Mere temporal proximity is insufficient when the challenged conduct simply continues a course established before the protected activity.