Limits to the Class Action Device: The Kentucky Wages and Hours Act Does Not Permit a Class Action

Article | 103 KY. L. J. ONLINE 2 | July 17, 2015

Jeffrey A. Savarise and Timothy J. Weatherholt[1]

I. Introduction

Class action claims for unpaid wages have become pervasive in both state and federal courts. Plaintiff employment attorneys and the ever burgeoning class action law firms are filing these cases throughout the country, including in Kentucky. A wage and hour class action can be extremely lucrative from a financial standpoint for plaintiffs’ counsel. Many of these classes include hundreds, if not thousands, of class members. Assuming a one-third contingency fee, a plaintiff counsel who settles a typical wage and hour class action could easily earn a seven-figure fee.The federal wage and hour law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), provides for a class mechanism for wage claims – collective actions. However, individuals must “opt in” to the “class,” as opposed to the more traditional “opt out” class actions. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA, a member of the class who is not named in the complaint is not a party unless he or she affirmatively “opts in” by filing a written consent-to-join with the court.[2] This has the obvious effect of limiting the recovery pool. Recent statistics show only around fifteen percent of litigants in federal collective actions actually “opt in” to the litigation.[3] The incentive for a plaintiff counsel to proceed in a state law class action – as opposed to a collective action under the federal law that requires litigants to affirmatively “opt in” to the case – is extremely high.Fortunately, for many members of the plaintiffs’ bar who practice wage and hour cases, most states supplement the basic protections of the FLSA with their own wage and hour laws. Some, but not all of these state laws, permit the class action device. For instance, several state wage and hour statutes explicitly permit an action to be brought on behalf of others.[4] The wage and hour statutes in other states provide more general language that does not authorize, nor preclude, the use of the class action device.[5] In this situation, state courts will typically approve of the class action device.[6] In those cases, plaintiffs are basically limited to the remedy provided under the FLSA.While this issue is settled in practically every state, either by clear statutory text or case law, the question of whether a Kentucky plaintiff can pursue a class action under Kentucky’s Wages and Hours Act (the “Kentucky Act”) remains unresolved.[7] The Kentucky Act is unique in that, on its face, for the reasons explained below, it does not appear to permit class actions. Yet, until recently, courts have taken no issue with plaintiffs pursuing class actions under the Kentucky Act.[8] In fact, it appears no employer/defendant had ever raised the issue prior to the authors of this note. This issue has serious potential consequences, not only due to the differences between “opt in” and “opt out” actions, but also because the statute of limitations under the Kentucky Act is five years[9] and the statute of limitations under the FLSA is only two years for non-willful violations.[10]This note argues Kentucky courts should adhere to the plain language and other extrinsic sources that support the position that class actions are not viable under the Kentucky Act. In Part II, this note will discuss the brief history of KRS 337.385 of the Kentucky Act and a few of the relevant cases discussing how wage and hour claims may proceed. The note will then review the Kentucky Act’s plain language and compare Kentucky’s statutory language to language in similar, but distinct statutes – the FLSA and Kentucky’s statutes prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex. The note will then discuss the opposing view for why the Kentucky Act might not bar class actions. In Part III, this note will discuss the recent decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in which it stated, albeit in dicta, the Kentucky Act precludes class actions. In Part IV, the note will discuss why the Court of Appeals was correct, but why a more comprehensive opinion is needed. In Part V, the note will highlight another opinion which provides a roadmap for how this dispute can be resolved. The note will conclude by discussing how the Kentucky General Assembly, not the courts, provides the best opportunity to enable the plaintiffs’ bar to bring class actions under the Kentucky Act.

II. The Kentucky Act: Its History and Text, As Well As Its Similarities and Differences as Compared to Like Statutes

A.The Language of KRS 337.385 Has Remained Remarkably Consistent Over Time

KRS 337.385(1) was first adopted in 1974 and has changed remarkably little over time. The 1974 version provided as follows:

(1) Any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of this Act shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. Provided, that if, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of this Act, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves.[11]

In 1978, KRS 337.385(1) was revised to read:

(1) Any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.020 to [337.275 and] 337.285 shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. Provided, that if, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of KRS 337.020 to [337.275 and] 337.385, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves.[12]

In 2010, the language was modified to be gender neutral:

(1) Any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.020 to 337.285 shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. Provided, that if, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her act or omission was not a violation of KRS 337.020 to 337.285, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.[13]

Finally, in 2013, KRS 337.385 was again revised, primarily to address forced labor, and subsection (1) was split into two sections:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.020 to 337.285 shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court.

(2) If, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her act or omission was not a violation of KRS 337.020 to 337.285, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.[14]

Throughout these revisions, the essential substance of the last sentence – which now reads, “[s]uch action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves” – remained the same.Between 1974 and 1986, there were only a few occasions where putative class actions reached the appellate level in published decisions. In Orms v. City of Louisville,[15] the issue on appeal concerned the application of Kentucky’s overtime compensation statute, KRS 337.285, to a City of Louisville policy that required its police officers to report fifteen minutes before they began their daily tour of duty.[16] The police officers sought to recover, in a class action, compensation for this time.[17] The Jefferson Circuit Court entered summary judgment for the City, and the Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the collective bargaining agreement at issue was controlling.[18]In City of Louisville v. Gnagie,[19] the plaintiffs/employers, individually and as representatives of the Louisville Firefighters’ Association, sought compensation in a class action suit against the City, pursuant to KRS 337.285, for their fifteen-minute “roll call” prior to each shift.[20 ]Both the City and the employees moved for summary judgment in Jefferson Circuit Court on the issue of liability.[21] The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, holding that the “roll call” period was de minimis,[22] and therefore, non-compensable, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Jefferson Circuit Court and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to resolve perceived factual disputes regarding the nature of the work performed during “roll call” and to determine whether the firefighters were customarily released from duty prior to the end of their shifts to compensate for the “roll call” period.[23] The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court.[24]Given the procedural postures of Orms and Gnagie, each presented obvious issues tailor-made for the City of Louisville’s attempt at a swift resolution. While the City could have raised the argument that class actions are not viable under the Kentucky Act, it clearly had even stronger arguments at its disposal. Unfortunately for the advancement of the law, a pair of Kentucky Court of Appeals cases decided around the same time as Orms and Gnagie obviated the need to address the statutory language. Collectively, Early v. Campbell Fiscal Court[25] and Noel v. Season-Sash, Inc.[26] stand for the general proposition that the Kentucky Labor Cabinet had original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought for the recovery of minimum wage and overtime payments, i.e., there was no right to an original action in the circuit court.[27] The Supreme Court did not overrule these cases until 20 years later in Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger.[28] Only then were litigants permitted to pursue their wage claims either at the Kentucky Labor Cabinet or in a circuit court.[29]Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Parts Depot, plaintiffs have brought class actions under the Kentucky Act in a number of cases.[30] This note contends that they lack the authority to do so, and defense practitioners, and to a lesser extent the courts, have missed the mark (at least, that is, until November 2013)[31] in failing to properly consider the meaning of the statutory language.

B. An Analysis Of The Plain Language Of KRS 337.385

1. How Kentucky Courts Analyze Statutes

The Kentucky Supreme Court has set forth the following rubric for how statutory language should be reviewed:

The seminal duty of a court in construing a statute is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning. Thus, we are “to ascertain the intention of the legislature for words used in enacting statutes rather than surmising what may have been intended but was not expressed.

Thus, if a statute is clear and unambiguous and expresses the legislature’s intent, the statute must be applied as written. And absent an ambiguity, there is no need to resort to the rules of statutory construction in interpreting it. Statutes, of course, must be read as a whole and in context with other parts of the law.[32]

In Revenue Cabinet v. O’Daniel,[33] the Supreme Court similarly noted, ‘“[t]he plain meaning of the statutory language is presumed to be what the legislature intended, and if the meaning is plain, then the court cannot base its interpretation on any other method or source.”’[34] Furthermore, in Lichtenstein v. Barbanel,[35] the Supreme Court remarked, “[i]f the statutory language is ambiguous, we will look to other sources to ascertain the legislature’s meaning, including legislative history.”[36]

2. Is KRS 337.385(1) of The Kentucky Act Ambiguous?

KRS 337.385 now provides that an employee or employees may sue “for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.”[37] On its face, this language permits multiple individuals to pursue their claims in one proceeding, but not in a representative capacity – an employee or employees may sue only “for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.”[38] The pronouns “himself,” “herself,” and “themselves” are reflexive pronouns, which always refer to, and are identical with, the subject of the sentence or clause.The subject of the statutory text at issue is the “one (1) or more employees” who are maintaining an action in court.[39] The pronouns “himself,” “herself,” and “themselves” refer to the “one (1) or more employees” who are maintaining such an action. A grammatical reading of the passage is:

(i) any one employee may maintain an action for and in behalf of himself;

(ii) any one employee may maintain an action for and in behalf of herself; and

(iii) any two or more employees may maintain an action for and in behalf of themselves.

Of course, it is fair to wonder why the General Assembly chose this particular language. After all, the General Assembly could have simply said something akin to “class actions are not permitted under this statute.” The General Assembly’s choice of words makes sense, however, in light of the federal statute on which it was modeled.

C. A Comparison To Like Statutes

1. The FLSA’s Remedy Mechanism

Kentucky courts have recognized the similarities between the remedy mechanism of the Kentucky Act and that of the FLSA.[40] The Kentucky Act’s remedy mechanism is similar to that of the FLSA, but with one major distinction, as noted below:

(Kentucky Act):

“Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.”[41]

(FLSA):

“An action . . . may be maintained against any employer . . . by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”[42]

2. Kentucky’s Wage Discrimination Because Of Sex Statute

In addition to the FLSA inference, there is an infrequently utilized section in KRS Chapter 337 that addresses wage discrimination based on sex.[43] In principal part, the anti-discrimination provision provides, “[n]o employer shall discriminate between employees in the same establishment on the basis of sex, by paying wages to any employee in any occupation in this state at a rate less than the rate at which he or she pays any employee of the opposite sex for comparable work on jobs which have comparable requirements relating to skill, effort and responsibility.”[44] The anti-discrimination provision is enforced by a subsequent provision providing, “[a]ction to recover the liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”[45]

D. The Opposing View

Perhaps the most potent argument is that the language of the statute does not, in ordinary words, preclude class relief, e.g., “class actions may not be maintained under this section.” In Califano v. Yamasaki,[46] the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a statute that provided, “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action . . . .”[47] The court found the use of the ambiguous phrase “any individual” did not express the clear congressional intent to preclude class actions.[48]Another argument focused on the potential interplay between Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure Rule (CR) 1 and 23. Rule 1 provides that the civil rules “govern procedure and practice in all actions of a civil nature . . . .”[49] In other words, there is a potential conflict between the judiciary’s adoption of civil rules permitting class actions and the legislature’s enactment of a statute that takes away the right to class actions. A number of other states have similar civil rules yet practically every state legislature, including Kentucky’s, has placed some form of a substantive restriction on the class action device.[50]Finally, the fact that a number of Kentucky courts, primarily Kentucky federal courts, have considered claims under the Act without taking issue with the ability to pursue a class action under the Act lends support, however small, to the position that the Act permits class actions.[51]

III. The Kentucky Court of Appeals Weighs in, Albeit in Dicta

In 2013, the Kentucky Court of Appeals had occasion to consider the argument that the Kentucky Act precludes class actions.[52] It did so in the context of litigation that had spanned fifteen years between Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (”TMMK”), represented by the authors of this piece,[53] and employees/former employees of its paint and bumper paint departments who claimed they were not compensated for time spent putting on and taking off a paint suit and walking to and from their work processes.[54] The Plaintiffs pursued their case as a class action, and millions of dollars in damages were potentially at issue given that the class could number over 1,000 members of TMMK’s paint and bumper paint departments.[55] This potential exposure only increased in 2007 when the Scott Circuit Court reopened the judicial case that had been final since 2003, in light of Parts Depot.[56]After a lengthy appellate process, the case returned to the Scott Circuit Court.[57] There, TMMK asserted the argument that the Kentucky Act does not provide for class actions, and, after the Scott Circuit Court denied its motion to dismiss on those grounds, re-asserted the argument in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.[58] Once Plaintiffs’ motion was granted, TMMK was able to avail itself of a recent change in the civil rules that permitted litigants to make an interlocutory appeal of a grant or denial of class certification.[59]The Kentucky Court of Appeals primarily addressed the point that it agreed with TMMK that the Scott Circuit Court should not have reopened the case.[60] In dicta, though, the Court of Appeals stated:

However, were we to reach the merits of this argument, we would agree with TMMK that the text of KRS 337.385(1) provides a clear expression of intent that class actions are not permitted . . . The statute permits more than one person to bring a cause of action under KRS 337.385(1) in the same case, but they may not do so in a representative capacity. Further, the effect of the “for and in behalf of” language is to limit the individuals who may participate in an action under the Act to those who actually bring the action. Thus, even if the trial court had properly reopened the case under CR 60.02(f), KRS 337.385(1) does not permit class actions and the trial court improperly certified a class.[61]

The very next month, the Jefferson Circuit Court likewise found in favor of Humana Inc., also represented by Fisher & Phillips, who argued the same position regarding the statutory language.[62] That opinion, however, is not binding on any other Kentucky court and did not substantively address the arguments outlined above.

IV. The Kentucky Court of Appeals Was Correct, But a More Comprehensive Opinion is Needed

While the opinions of the Court of Appeals and the Jefferson Circuit Court reached the correct result, neither opinion thoroughly reviewed all of the arguments supporting the position that the Kentucky Act does not permit class actions. The most critical argument is, of course, the plain text. None of the readings of KRS 337.385(1) outlined above supports a conclusion that employees may sue for and in behalf of anyone else, that is, for and in behalf of anyone who has not also commenced an “action” to assert his or her own rights under the Act. While more than one person may bring a cause of action under the Kentucky Act, the language of KRS 337.385(1), on its face, bars them from doing so in a representative capacity. Given Kentucky law holding that the plain text controls absent ambiguity, this should resolve the issue.But given the support from extrinsic sources, it makes sense for a court to consider those sources as well. The Kentucky Act’s phrasing negating the class action device makes perfect sense when read in conjunction with the FLSA. Moreover, the Kentucky General Assembly adopted KRS 337.427, a section of the Kentucky Wage Discrimination Because of Sex statute, in 1966, eight years prior to its adoption of KRS 337.385.[63] Thus, it cannot be said the Kentucky General Assembly was unaware of the “for and in behalf of” language when it adopted KRS 337.385(1) in 1974.It is fair to wonder, however, whether the 1974 General Assembly somehow inadvertently omitted the “and other employees similarly situated” language included in the FLSA. Of course, Kentucky has long-recognized the “primary rule of statutory construction that the enumeration of particular things excludes the idea of something else not mentioned.”[64] In Fox v. Grayson,[65] the Kentucky Supreme Court noted, “[w]e cannot dismiss the notable omission of language . . . as a mere accidental oversight. It is well settled law that a court may not add language to the written law to achieve a desired result.”[66] Similarly, in Rue v. Ky. Ret. Sys.,[67] the Kentucky Court of Appeals stated, “[w]e are not free to add words to statutory enactments in order to enlarge their scope beyond that which can be gleaned from a reading of the words used by the legislature.”[68]The Kentucky Supreme Court has a history of adhering to the slight differences in language in related statutes – a point that could easily be highlighted in any opinion on the Kentucky Act. In Kentucky Department of Corrections v. McCullough,[69] the Kentucky Supreme Court considered two different provisions of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. At issue was the availability of punitive damages, specified in one provision but not the other:

(Kentucky Civil Rights Act – Employment Discrimination):

In the employment discrimination context, permitting recovery for “actual damages sustained.”[70]

(Kentucky Civil Rights Act – Housing Discrimination):

In the housing discrimination context, permitting recovery for “punitive damages.”[71]

When faced with this obvious disparity in language, the Kentucky Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ “policy-oriented approach,” which allowed for recovery of punitive damages under the employment discrimination remedy provision of KRS 344.[72] Instead, the Court reversed and found, inter alia, that “in construing statutes it must be presumed that the Legislature intended something by what it attempted to do.”[73]A more recent case provides another compelling example of the power of precise statutory language. In Griffin v. Rice,[74] the issue was who would receive the deceased’s estate, his mother or his wife.[75] The answer turned on the Kentucky Supreme Court’s interpretation of KRS 392.090(2), which provided that a spouse who voluntarily leaves the other and “lives in adultery” forfeits his or her right to an interest in the other’s estate of property.[76] The proof at trial showed that the deceased’s wife engaged in one act of sexual intercourse with another man, which happened to be the night prior to the deceased’s death.[77]In concluding that the phrase “lives in adultery” requires proof of more than one sexual act, the Court noted Kentucky’s former fault-based divorce statute contained different phrasing depending upon the party seeking the divorce.[78] According to the prior statute – which while concededly dated and sexist is nevertheless instructive for this limited purpose – a husband or a wife could obtain a divorce on the grounds that the other was “living in adultery with another man or woman,” but, according to another provision, a husband could also obtain a divorce on the grounds of “adultery by the wife.”[79] In finding for the wife, Griffin focused on the difference in language and stated:

Had the General Assembly considered one instance of adultery sufficient to bar a husband or wife from his or her interest in the other spouse’s estate and property, it would have made this clear by employing different wording in the statute, such as “commits adultery” or “engages in adultery.” Another statute, in effect at the same time as the statute at issue, indicates the General Assembly was aware of the import of its phrasing and knew exactly how to distinguish between one adulterous act and multiple acts of adultery. . . . The language chosen by the General Assembly in the contemporaneous divorce statute makes clear the legislature was aware of the significance of its phrasing and was able, had it meant to do so, to employ language that indicated one act of adultery would be sufficient to bar a husband or wife from his or her interest in the other spouse’s estate and property.[80]

Taken together, McCullough and Griffin stand for the proposition that different word choices in closely related statutes must be given effect. The General Assembly clearly understands the import of even slight word changes, and the Supreme Court has read those words literally, regardless of the outcome. In Griffin, that approach arguably had real and negative consequences – rewarding the unfaithful wife at the expense of the deceased’s mother.By contrast, there are no such negative consequences to the General Assembly’s choice to omit the critical and dispositive phrase “and other employees similarly situated.” Any individual who wants to pursue a claim under the Kentucky Act may do so, regardless of whether class actions are permitted. That has been, and will always be, the case. Employees simply will be unable to do so in any type of representative action.In other words, the only individuals truly harmed by this argument are the plaintiffs’ bar. Ultimately, though, the plaintiffs’ bar could have the opportunity to alter this outcome, despite the plain language of the Kentucky Act.

V. The Court of Appeals Provided a Roadmap for How This Issue Should Be Resolved in an Earlier Case

In 2005, the Court of Appeals in City of Somerset v. Bell[81] correctly read a statute as providing for class actions, and later that same year, the General Assembly, disagreeing with that conclusion, amended the statute. In City of Somerset, the Court of Appeals cited a line of precedent spanning more than 70 years which interpreted the statute at issue in that case, KRS 134.590(6), and its predecessor statute, as not allowing for class relief because it provided “[n]o refund shall be made unless application is made in each case within two (2) years from the date payment was made.”[82]City of Somerset noted that line of precedent was called into question due to a 1996 statutory amendment to KRS 134.590(6) which deleted the words “in each case.”[83] This amendment allowed the plaintiff taxpayers to argue the statute now permitted class actions.[84] The Court agreed with the taxpayers, citing Kentucky law providing, “[w]here a statute is amended or re-enacted in different language, it will not be presumed that the difference between the two statutes was due to oversight or inadvertence on the part of the Legislature. On the contrary, it will be presumed that the language was intentionally changed for the purpose of effecting a change in the law itself.”[85] Given this guidance, the court concluded:

Considering the historical significance of that phrase [in each case], beginning in the Swiss Oil case, we must conclude that the intent of the legislature was to amend that portion of the statute limiting refunds for ad valorem taxes to individual claims. Even if the change was unintentional, its effect was to alter key language of a statute, which, for some seventy years before the amendment, had been interpreted by the courts to limit tax refunds to individual claims.[86]

The General Assembly became aware of this result, and, later that very same year (2005), enacted new language to make clear its intent that class actions are not permissible.[87] The statute now reads, “[n]o refund shall be made unless each taxpayer individually applies . . .”[88]City of Somerset provides a model for how statutes should be reviewed. The absence of the phrase “in each case” was critical and dispositive in that case. It would have been more than a little odd for the Court to deny the availability of the class action mechanism to the taxpayers in 2005, given how the statute read at that time. But the General Assembly did not want taxpayers to be able to proceed as a class, so it took away that ability through an amendment to the statute’s text. If the General Assembly believes class actions are appropriate under the Kentucky Act, it will presumably do likewise here, once a Kentucky court definitively decides this issue. Absent that, it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to read into the Kentucky Act what is not there – either by consideration of the plain language or from the context of similar statutes.

[1] Jeff Savarise and Tim Weatherholt are partners in the Louisville office of Fisher & Phillips LLP, a national labor and employment law firm representing employers. Jeff is a 1982 graduate of John Carroll University and a 1985 graduate of the University of Akron School of Law. Tim is a 2001 graduate of Transylvania University and a 2004 graduate of Vanderbilt Law School.[2] Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, 564 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1977); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2008).[3] See, e.g., Andrew C. Brunsden, Hybrid Class Actions, Dual Certification, and Wage Law Enforcement in the Federal Courts, 29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 269, 292–94 (2008).[4] See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 23.10.110(b) (2012) (“An action to recover from the employer the wages and damages for which the employer is liable may be maintained in a competent court by an employee personally and for other employees similarly situated, or an employee may individually designate in writing an agent or representative to maintain an action for the employee.”); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 387-12(c) (2008) (“Action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of oneself or themselves and other employees similarly situated, or the employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain action for and in behalf of all employees similarly situated.”); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 275:53(1) (2008) (“Action by an employee to recover unpaid wages and/or liquidated damages may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf or himself, or themselves, or such employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain such action.”).[5] See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 177.27(8) (2006) (“An employee may bring a civil action seeking redress . . . .”).[6] See, e.g., Braun v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 19-CO-01-9790, 2003 WL 22990114, at *3 (D. Minn. 2003) (certifying class in connection with working off the clock and through break and meal periods on breach of contract and other theories).[7] The Kentucky Act provides in pertinent part: “Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385(2) (West Supp. 2014).[8] See. e.g., Whitlock v. FSL Mgt., LLC, No. 3:10CV-00562-JHM, 2012 WL 3274973, at *14 (W.D. Ky. 2012), Hughes, v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2012-CA-001353-ME, 2012-CA-001757-ME, 2013 WL 4779746, at *7 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013); England v. Adv. Stores Co., Inc., 263 F.R.D. 423, 458 (W.D. Ky. 2009); Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-00170-H, 2012 WL 5305335, at *1 (W.D. Ky. 2012); McCauley v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-363-S, 2010 WL 3221880, at *1 (W.D. Ky. 2010).[9] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.120(2) (2006).[10] 29 U.S.C. § 255 (2011).[11] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (1974) (current version at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014)).[12] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (1978) (current version at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014)).[13] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (2010) (current version at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014)).[14] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014).[15] Orms v. City of Louisville, 686 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984).[16] Id. at 465.[17] Id.[18 ] Id.[19] City of Louisville v. Gnagie, 716 S.W.2d 236 (Ky. 1986).[20] Id. at 237.[21] Id. at 236–37.[22] De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things. It is commonly used by courts as a basis to not count certain small increments of time and the beginning and end of a workday that may otherwise be compensable.[23] Gnagie, 716 S.W.2d at 237.[24] Id.[25 ]Early v. Campbell Cnty. Fiscal Court, 690 S.W.2d 398 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).[26] Noel v. Season-Sash, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 901 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).[27] See id. at 903 (To reiterate, the Commissioner of Labor has original jurisdiction, as held in the Early case, only in those wage and hour disputes in which the duty to provide the benefits sought by the claimant derives solely from the statute . . . .”).[28] Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger, 170 S.W.3d 354, 356 (Ky. 2005).[29] See id. at 361–62.[30] See, e.g., Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-00170-H, 2012 WL 5305335, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 25, 2012); Whitlock v. FSL Mgmt., LLC, No. 3:10-CV-00562-JHM, 2012 WL 3274973, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2012); McCauley v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-363-S, 2010 WL 3221880, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 12, 2010); England v. Advance Stores Co., 263 F.R.D. 423 (W.D. Ky. 2009); Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2012-CA-001353-ME, 2012-CA-001757-ME, 2013 WL 4779746, at *1 (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2013).[31] See infra notes 52–63 and accompanying text.[32 ]Hall v. Hospitality Res., 276 S.W.3d 775, 784 (Ky. 2008) (citations omitted).[33] Revenue Cabinet v. O’Daniel, 153 S.W.3d 815 (Ky. 2005).[34] Id. at 819 (citing Ronald Benton Brown & Sharon Jacobs Brown, Statutory Interpretation: The Search for Legislative Intent § 4.2, at 38 (2002)).[35] Lichtenstein v. Barbanel, 322 S.W.3d 27 (Ky. 2010).[36] Id. at 34–35 (citing MPM Financial Group Inc. v. Morton, 289 S.W.3d 193, 198 (Ky. 2009)).[37] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014).[38] Id.[39] Id.[40] See Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger, 170 S.W.3d 354, 358 (Ky. 2005).[41] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West 2014).[42] 29 U.S.C. § 216 (2012) (emphasis added).[43] Kentucky’s Wage Discrimination Because of Sex provisions are located at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann §§ 337.420—337.433 (West 2014).[44] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann §§ 337.423(1) (West 2014).[45] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann §§ 337.427(2) (West 2014) (emphasis added).[46] Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979).[47] Id. at 698 n. 12.[48] Id. at 700.[49] Ky. R. Civ. P. 1(2).[50] (Class Action not permitted—31 states) See, e.g., Ala. Code § 8-19-10(f) (2014); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-712(C) (2014); Ark. Code Ann. § 4-87-103 (West 2014); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-740 (West 2014); Fla. Stat. § 624.155(6) (West 2014); Ga. Code. Ann. § 7-4-21 (West 2014); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 477E-4(b) (West 2014); Idaho Code Ann. § 28-45-201(1) and (3) (West 2014); 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/7(2) (West 2014); Iowa Code § 537.5203(1) (West 2014); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-634(b) (West 2014); Ky. Rev. Stat. 134.590(6) (West 2014); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1409(A) (2014); Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1611(1) (2014); Minn. Stat. § 325M.07 (2014); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-15(4) (West 2014); Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133(1) (West 2013); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2793(1) (2014); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 359-H:4 (2014); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 46:10B-29(a)(2) (West 2014); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75C-5 (2014); Okla. Stat. tit. 36 § 6595; Or. Rev. Stat. § 238.362(4)(a) (2014); 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2208(d) (2014); R.I. Gen Laws § 15-7.2-5(b) (2014); S.C. Code Ann. § 40-39-160(1) (2013); S.D. Codified Laws § 10-47B-131.2 (2014); Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-47-108(a)(2) (West 2014); Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 605.005 (West 2013); Utah Code Ann. § 13-37-203(3) (West 2014); Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(3) (2014). (Class Action Limited – 15 states) See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 1787.3(b) (West 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2) (2014); Ind. Code 9-32-12-4(c) (2014); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 11054(c)(2) (2014); Md. Code Ann. § 12-707(c) (West 2014); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140D, § 32(a)(2)(b) (2014); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 71.675(2) (2014); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.255(3)(b) (2014); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 58-16-15(B) (West 2014); N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-702(a)(2) (McKinney 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1351.08(A)(2)(b)(ii) (West 2014); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-316(A)(2) (West 2014); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(e)(2) (2014); Wis. Stat. § 426.110(3) (2013); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 40-19-119(a)(iii) (2014).[51] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.120(2) (West 2014).[52] Toyota Motor Mfg, Kentucky, Inc. v. Kelley, et al., No. 2012-CA-001508-ME, 2013 WL 6046079 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2013).[53] As co-author Jeff Savarise tells the story, he locked himself in his office, determined to develop an argument that would allow TMMK to prevail in this case. When he emerged, he posited the heretofore novel theory that that Kentucky Act does not permit class actions. Just as in Orms and Gnagie, there were other arguments to present on appeal, but this novel argument provided an extra layer of security in the correctness of our position.[54] TMMK, 2013 WL 6046079, at *1.[55] Id.[56] Id. at *2.[57] Id. at *2.[58] Id. at *3–4.[59] Ky. R. Civ. P. 23.06, which became effective on January 1, 2011, provides, “[a]n order granting or denying class action certification is appealable within 10 days after the order is entered. . .”[60] TMMK, 2013 WL 6046079, at *8–9.[61] Id. at *9.[62] See Brown v. Humana Inc. and Humana Ins. Co., No. 13-CI-002422 (Ky. Cir. Ct. Dec. 5, 2013).[63] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.427 (West 1966).[64] Smith v. Wedding, 303 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Ky. 1957) (citation omitted).[65] Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010).[66] Id. at 8.[67] Rue v. Ky. Ret. Sys., 32 S.W.3d 87 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).[68] Id. at 89.[69] Kentucky Department of Corrections v. McCullough, 123 S.W.3d 130 (Ky. 2003).[70] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.450 (West 1974).[71] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.660 (West 1991); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.665 (West 1992).[72] McCullough, 123 S.W.3d at 139.[73] Id. at 140 (emphasis added).[74] Griffin v. Rice, 381 S.W.3d 198 (Ky. 2012).[75] Id.at 200.[76] Id. at 201.[77] Id. at 199.[78] Id. at 202–03.[79] Id. at 202.[80] Id. at 202–03.[81] City of Somerset v. Bell, 156 S.W.3d 321 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).[82] Id. at 326 (citing Swiss Oil Corp. v. Shanks, 270 S.W. 478 (Ky. 1925); Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County v. Taulbee, 706 S.W.2d 827 (Ky. 1986); Bischoff v. City of Newport, 733 S.W.2d 762 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987)) (emphasis in original).[83] Id. at 326.[84] Id. [85] Id. at 327 (citing Eversole v. Eversole, 185 S.W. 487, 489 (1916)).[86] Id. at 326–27.[87] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 134.590(6) (West 1992).[88] Id. (Emphasis added).

The Commonwealth's Response to Kentucky's Pill Mill Problem

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 102 KY. L. J. ONLINE 2 | Oct. 27, 2013

Peter P. CohronFN1

Introduction

Prescription pain pill abuse and misuse is a substantial problem in Kentucky.FN2 In the Commonwealth, over one thousand deaths per year are attributable to drug overdoses.FN3 This figure is the sixth highest in the country and represents more deaths than those caused by automobile accidents. Additionally, Kentucky ranks as the fourth most medicated state in the United States, though it ranks twenty-sixth for population.FN4 Governor Steve Beshear has acknowledged the problem, “We have an epidemic in Kentucky that we cannot ignore….We are losing lives. We are losing families, and we’ve got to aggressively attack that problem.”FN5 Much of the state’s drug problem was the result of pain pill mills, alleged pain management clinics where patients were prescribed controlled substance (narcotic) prescription medication following either a cursory examination or no examination by the physician on site. The phrase “pill mill” is nomenclature used by local and state police investigators most often to describe a physician or clinic, and occasionally a pharmacy, that is prescribing or dispensing controlled substance narcotics inappropriately or for non-medical reasons.FN6 However, the Governor’s call to arms was not solely aimed at these so-called clinics. Governor Beshear sought comprehensive legislation that would address all of  the concerns regarding the prescribing and use of controlled substances including  properly organizing and running pain management facilities, properly training physicians prescribing these dangerous drugs, balancing the interests to provide a watchful but not overly intrusive eye on the patient consumer of these drugs, and providing authority for the proper administrative boards and the necessary police powers to act in cases of prescribing regulations. In a demonstration of the importance of this issue, Governor Beshear called a special session of the Kentucky Legislature to provide for a solution.

House Bill 1 (KRS 218A.172)

The Legislature responded with House Bill 1 (HB1).FN7 House Bill 1 recognized the necessity of having properly managed and maintained pain management clinics. Therefore rather than banning such facilities outright, HB1 sought to achieve quality care by instituting standards for opening and running such a clinic. The Legislature attempted to balance the need for regulation due to the prevalence of the misuse of these medications leading to dependence and violence with the privacy concerns of the prescription pill user. HB1 attempted to strike this balance by limiting scope of the bill to Schedule IIFN8 controlled substances and other controlled substances containing hydrocodone.FN9 However, in promulgating administrative regulations pursuant to this bill, under KRS 218A.172, which is also limited to these drugs, the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure relied on KRS 218A.205, a statue regarding reports of improper, inappropriate, or illegal prescribing or dispensing of controlled substances. As a result, the regulation promulgatedFN10 was not limited to Schedule II controlled substances and controlled substances containing hydrocodone, but included all controlled substances except Schedule V.FN11 A primary issue addressed by the regulation is the physician’s decision to prescribe a controlled substance to a patient for pain. Under this regulation, in order to prescribe controlled substances, a physician must meet certain professional standards. Prior to prescribing, the physician must obtain an “appropriate medical history relevant to the medical complaint,”FN12 obtain a KASPER report on the patent,FN13 make a “deliberate decision” to prescribe a controlled substance after weighing the benefits of the drug against the risks,FN14 and counsel the patient regarding how to take the drug and when to stop the treatment.FN15 As many of the patients at pain management facilities, legitimate and otherwise, are chronic controlled substance users, the regulation sets forth additional standards for prescribing for this patient population. These standards apply to all patients over the age of sixteen who are being treated with controlled substances for longer than 3 months.FN16 Before prescribing and regularly afterwards, the prescribing physician must obtain a history of the illness or condition, a past medical history, including any relevant family history and any history of past substance abuse, and a psychosocial history.FN17 To ensure a first time face-to-face meeting between patient and physician, there must be an appropriate physical examination that supports the patient’s claim of chronic pain,FN18 and a baseline assessment that establishes starting measurements by which to gauge future progress or decline in the condition.FN19 If this screening indicates any propensity or indication of substance abuse, the physician is required to refer the patient to an appropriate treatment center or provider.FN20 If the patient shows an indication or risk of diverting the prescribed drugs, the physician shall employ the use of a prescribing agreement, or pain management contract.FN21 Where there is any indication of either behavior, prior to the prescribing of controlled substances, the physician must perform a baseline drug screen.FN22 Once a patient begins long term continuing treatment for pain, the physician must meet additional requirements. The patient must be re-evaluated on a monthly basis by the physician and then at appropriate intervals.FN23 If improvement is expected and does not occur, the physician must refer the patient to an appropriate physician for consultation.FN24 The patient is also required to have an annual physical examination.FN25 The physician also must obtain follow-up KASPER reports at least every 3 months.FN26 Frequently when pharmacies deny filling pain mill prescriptions these patients present in hospitals’ emergency departments complaining of pain. In order to deter this behavior, the regulation placed limits on emergency doctors’ ability to prescribe these medications. Under the new law, emergency doctors were prohibited from administering IV controlled substances,FN27 replacing a lost or stolen prescription for a controlled substance,FN28 replacing a methadone Subutex or Suboxone dose for a patient in a drug treatment program,FN29 prescribing controlled release products such as Oxycontin,FN30 or prescribing more than a 7 day supply of a controlled substance.FN31 For the treatment of other conditions (excluding pain), the same standards apply. In the case where the patient has a psychiatric complaint, an appropriate psychiatric examination must be performed prior to prescribing controlled substances.FN32 If the on-site physician is, or feels, unqualified to perform a psychiatric examination, the patient must be referred to an appropriate physician or facility.FN33 In seeking to establish its authority and determine its scope, HB1 defined a pain management facility as a facility where the majority of patients are treated for pain with controlled substances, and 1) the primary practice component is pain treatment, or 2) the clinic advertises any type of pain management services.FN34 HB1 regulated the ownership of such pain management facilities by requiring that only a fully licensed physician may own or have an investment interest in a pain clinic, though clinics in existence before July 20, 2012 were grandfathered in.FN35  Additionally, one physician owner must be on-site at least 50% of the time the facility is open and he must be engaged in the practice of medicine at the site.FN36 This physician must hold a current American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) subspecialty certification, American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Osteopathic Specialties (AOABOS) certification in pain management, or a current ABMS or AOABOS certification in hospice or palliative care, or hold board certification by the American Board of Pain Medicine or American Board of Interventional Pain Physicians, or have done a residency or fellowship in pain management.FN37 In another move to legitimize treatment for those truly in pain, HB1 addressed the issue of payment. Prior to enactment of HB1, unscrupulous physicians were preying on those in chronic pain by accepting cash as the only form of payment, thus obfuscating the facility’s records. HB1 required that pain management facilities accept private health insurance and payment only from the patient, responsible caregiver, and/or insurance.FN38 After HB1 was implemented with relevant administrative regulations physicians, while agreeing that prescription drug abuse was “an out of control issue in Kentucky” and a very serious problem, criticized HB1.FN39 The critics were not limited to physicians, as hospitals and patients also claimed that “HB 1 in its present form restricts too many drugs in too many clinical settings, needlessly complicating medical care.”FN40 Because of HB1, many patients incurred costs for drug testing that their insurance would not cover.FN41 For these reasons, the bill seemed to, in effect, punish the patient in more ways than it was aiding in the fight against pill mills.

House Bill 217

In response to these criticisms, Governor Beshear signed into law House Bill 217 (HB217) on March 5, 2013. This bill was designed to address and eliminate the problems created by HB1.FN42 The purpose of this new bill was to remove onerous requirements from both physician and patient, while continuing to address the widespread drug abuse problem in Kentucky and seeking to provide adequate medical care and treatment for those patients truly in pain, acute or chronic. The all-encompassing sweep of HB1 had previously required that every entity in the Commonwealth be covered by HB1. To remedy this scope issue, HB217 exempted hospitals, long term care facilities, hospices, and end-of-life care centers that prescribe controlled substances and research facilities from the reporting and prescribing requirements.FN43 These facilities and prescribers were determined to only contribute slightly to pain pill abuse and therefore their inclusion under HB1 was deemed unduly burdensome. HB217 also addressed HB1’s requirement that each facility whose primary function or business was pain management have some kind of certification in pain control or management. Critics argued that this requirement, though reasonable, was problematic as it forced the closure of businesses until their physicians could comply with the certification. HB217 amended this requirement to allow facilities without such certification to stay open if they were “making reasonable progress toward completing or holding, a certification.”FN44 Next, the bill revised the KASPER requirement of HB1. Under the previous bill, KASPER checks were not limited to a specific time period prior to treatment. Therefore, KASPER reports had to be sought as far back as obtainable. Critics argued that this was an unnecessary administrative burden and that it created an impediment to establishing effective treatment plans.FN45 Additionally, there was concern that patients who had successfully completed a drug addiction treatment program would be characterized incorrectly by reference to their past records. HB217 addresses these concerns by limiting the scope of the KASPER check to twelve months previous to the day of the examination or prescription for controlled substances.FN46  However, HB217 requires that if treatment extends beyond ninety days, then the KASPER query be repeated every three months.FN47 The major criticism from physicians of HB1 was that requiring a physical examination and a medical history review prior to prescribing a controlled substance was an undue burden, repetitive, and time-consuming. To attempt to balance all of the interests involved, HB217 removed the word “complete” from the legislation so that physicians, in the exercise of professional judgment, could limit the scope of the examination to those facets important to the medical complaint. Second, the requirement for an examination was changed and required now only when “appropriate to the patient’s medical complaint.”FN48 This requirement relieves the physician from completing a physical examination, especially in circumstances where the physician is already well acquainted with the patient’s condition, and additionally relieves the patient of the costs of unnecessary testing. Even with the changes implemented by HB217, critics continue to have concerns. Critics worry that physicians, faced with significant oversight, may treat pain too cautiously or not at all. The fear continues to be that legitimate patients in extreme pain will still have substantial obstacles to obtaining the medication that they need.FN49

Conclusion

The impact of the legislation was largely seen prior to the enactment of HB217. When HB1 had been in force for less than three months, ten pain management pill mills in the Commonwealth of Kentucky had closed. Prescriptions for the pill mill “cocktail”FN50 have dropped dramatically. The number of KASPER subscribers had tripled, and KASPER is handling, on average, more than 18,000 requests a day (of which over 90% are responded to in less than fifteen minutes).FN51 With the passage of HB1 and HB217, the Kentucky Legislature has taken a strong and serious step towards ending the epidemic of drug abuse widespread in the Commonwealth. The willingness of the Legislature to flexibly and quickly address issues with the initial bill emphasizes its concern for this issue. However, HB1 and HB217 merely address only one of the root causes of the drug problem in Kentucky. Therefore neither the citizenry nor the Legislature should celebrate the accomplishments made by these bills, but instead, they should swiftly seek out other effective ways to help significantly address and substantially eliminate the drug problem in Kentucky.

FN1. Peter P. Cohron is a graduate of the University of Kentucky colleges of Pharmacy and Law.  He practices in both professions, as a pharmacist for a major retail chain and as an attorney in private practice mainly dealing with pharmacy related issues.

FN2. The definition of drug or substance abuse is the use of a drug for a result unintended by the prescriber, e.g., getting high. Misuse is defined as the use of a drug for an intended result but taken in a manner or dose not prescribed. Abuse, The Free Dictionary.com, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abuse (last visited September 15, 2013).

FN3. Stop Rx Abuse Before It Starts, Office of the Attorney General, http://ag.ky.gov/rxabuse/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Sept. 15, 2013).

FN4. Id.

FN5. Mike Wynn, Kentucky Senate Passes Pill Mill Legislation, Courier-Journal (Louisville), March 28, 2012, http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120328/NEWS01/303280092/Kentucky-Senate-passes-pill-mill-legislation.

FN6. Id.

FN7. H.R. 1A, 2012 Gen. Assemb., 1st Spec. Sess. § 1(1)(A) (Ky. 2012) (hereinafter HB1).

FN8. Schedule II controlled substances are defined in Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 218A.060–070 (LexisNexis 2013).

FN9. Hydrocodone is a Schedule III controlled substance, defined in Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 218A.080–090 (LexisNexis 2013) and referenced as “dihydrocodeinone,” a synonym for hydrocodone that is marketed under such brand names as Lortab, Vicodin, and Norco.

FN10. Professional Standards for Prescribing and Dispensing Controlled Substances, 201 Ky. Admin. Reg. 9:260 (September 2013).

FN11. Id. at § 1(2)(g).

FN12. Id. at § 3(1).

FN13. Id. at § 3(2). KASPER, Kentucky All Security Prescription Electronic Record, is a monitoring system for all controlled substance prescriptions dispensed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

FN14. Id. at § 3(3).

FN15. Id. at §§ 3–5.

FN16. Id. at § 4(1).

FN17. Id. at § 4(2)(a).

FN18. Id. at § 4(2)(b).

FN19. Id. at § 4(2)(c).

FN20. Id. at § 4(2)(h)(2).

FN21. Id. at (4)(2)(h)(3). These agreements or contracts may limit who may prescribe controlled substances to the patient, state the pharmacy where the patient must fill his prescriptions, and/or require random pill counts and drug tests.

FN22. Id. at § (4)(2)(h)(4).

FN23. Id. at § (5)(2)(a)(1).

FN24. Id. at § (5)(2)(e).

FN25. Id. at § (5)(2)(h).

FN26. Id. at § (5)(2)(i).

FN27. Id. at § (6)(1).

FN28. Id. at § (6)(2).

FN29. Id. at § (6)(3).

FN30. Id. at § (6)(4).

FN31. Id. at § 7(1)(a).

FN32. Id. at § (6)(6).

FN33. Id. at § (7)(1)(a)(1)-(2).

FN34. H.R. 1A, 2012 Gen. Assemb., 1st Spec. Sess. § 1(1)(A) (Ky. 2012) (hereinafter HB1).

FN35. Id. at § 1(2).

FN36. Id. at § 1(3).

FN37. Id.

FN38. Id. at § 1(4).

FN39. Gregory A. Hood, Kentucky House Bill 1: Controlled Substance Regulations, Perhaps Nationally Next?, Weekend Call (July 21, 2012, 08:18 PM), http://boards.medscape.com/forums/?128@@.2a339438!comment=1.

FN40. John Cheves, Kentucky Lawmakers Expected to Alter Pill Mill Bill in Session That Starts Tuesday, Lexington Herald-Leader, January 5, 2013, http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/05/2465788/ky-lawmakers-expected-to-alter.html.

FN41. Id.

FN42. Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill” Amended by House Bill 217, Frost Brown Todd (Mar. 6, 2013), http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1579.html.

FN43. H.R. 217, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. § 1(4) (Ky. 2013) (hereinafter HB 217).

FN44. Id. at § 2(3)(f).

FN45. Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill” Amended by House Bill 217, supra note 41.

FN46. HB217 at § 1(1)(b).

FN47. Id. at § 1(2)(b)(1).

FN48. Id. at § 1(1)(a).

FN49. Gregory A. Hood, Kentucky House Bill 1: Controlled Substance Regulations, Perhaps Nationally Next?, Weekend Call (July 21, 2012, 08:18 PM), http://boards.medscape.com/forums/?128@@.2a339438!comment=1.

FN50. Usually a pain pill mill cocktail includes prescriptions for carisoprodol, alprazolam, and either hydrocodone or oxycodone-containing painkillers.

FN51. Press Release, Kentucky Office of the Attorney General, New Prescription Abuse Laws Driving Pill Mills Out of Business, Investigations of Overprescribers Launched (Oct. 17, 2012), available at http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/ag/fewerpillmills.htm.

Sticks and Stones: A Needed Legislative Reform to Kentucky's Approach to Cyberbulling

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 102 KY. L. J. ONLINE 1 | Sept. 22, 2013

Amanda East

Introduction

It can hardly be argued that…students…shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech…at the schoolhouse gate.FN1

Reading, writing, and arithmetic are the “three r’s” used to describe the foundation of the typical American education. Another unspoken fixture of the American classroom is bullying. This longstanding practice has entered the new millennium, and technology has given bullies new ways to torment victims. Kameron Jacobsen was a high school freshman in New York who enjoyed spending time with his family and was constantly using Facebook, a social networking site, to interact with his classmates.FN2 This social forum became a nightmare when his peers used it to taunt and ridicule Kameron until he committed suicide.FN3 His family had no available recourse because, like most states, New York’s legislative and judicial branches are ill-prepared to address the emerging issue of cyberbullying.FN4 Perhaps worst of all, Kameron is not the first student to be “a victim of cyberbullying,” nor is he the last. In the Bluegrass State, Rachael Neblett, a seventeen-year old high school student took her life in 2006 under similar circumstances.FN5 The Internet has benefited teenagers in a number of ways, but, in conjunction with these benefits, courts have seen increased litigation regarding cyberbullying.FN6 The absence of Supreme Court precedent on this issue has resulted in an array of state and federal court decisions. State legislatures have amended or adopted new statutes to address this problem. I contend that in order to sufficiently address cyberbullying, Kentucky needs to recognize schools have an important interest in preventing cyberbullying and need broader authority to effectively address this problem. Kentucky needs to enact legislation, similar to Vermont or Massachusetts, permitting schools to regulate off-campus Internet student speech. This broadening of what it means to be “within” the “schoolhouse gates” is justified because of the nature of the interest and the legislature’s ability to tailor schools’ authority in order not to infringe on protected speech. In order to prove this thesis, Part I will begin by defining cyberbullying. Part II will then examine lower court decisions on the cyberbullying issue, beginning with relevant Supreme Court precedent, and the developing body of case law, identifying three standard cyberbullying approaches taken by lower courts. Part III will address state legislatures’ responses to cyberbullying. Part IV will analyze efforts by the House of the Kentucky General Assembly to amend existing statutes and their shortcomings, and finally Part V will conclude with an appeal for additional cyberbullying legislation in Kentucky.

I.      Cyberbullying and its Effects

Cyberbullying is distinguishable from traditional bullying in four ways. First, the aggressor can choose to remain anonymous by creating a false, online identity, establishing a sense of power and control.FN7 Second, the speed of dissemination ensures the victim will more readily experience the bullying.FN8 Third, the Internet has unlimited reach ensuring “cruel and sadistic behavior [will be] amplified and publicized, not just on the campus [of a school], but throughout the world.”FN9 Last, the victim’s torment is constant and inescapable because he or she experiences it every time they access the Internet.FN10

II.      Student Speech and The First Amendment: An Overview

A. Supreme Court Student Speech Jurisprudence

In the wake of increased litigation, lower courts have used four seminal Supreme Court cases to balance a student’s interest in freedom of speech and the school’s interest in regulation. The first of these cases, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, established protection of in-school student speech, while the three subsequent cases carved out content-based exceptions. In effect, the Supreme Court has instituted four standards that lower courts may apply in determining the constitutionality of student speech.

1.      Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

In Tinker, the Court stated that students do not “shed their constitutional rights…at the schoolhouse gate,’” and struck down students’ suspensions for wearing black armbands in school because the school failed to show a “substantial disruption.”FN11Under this standard, a school may regulate student speech to provide a safe and productive learning environment only when the school can show the speech did, or could reasonably be foreseen to, materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.FN12

2.      Bethlehem School District v. Fraser

Bethlehem School District v. Fraser established a separate standard restriction on student speech.FN13 The Fraser standard permits schools to prohibit vulgar, lewd, or obscene student speech regardless of whether or not it results in disruption because the Court recognized that schools have an interest in protecting minors from speech that is “inconsistent with the ‘fundamental values’ of public school education.”FN14

3.      Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld censoring student speech because it was part of a school-sponsored activity “bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,” meaning the school was effectively being asked to promote student speech inconsistent with its basic educational mission.FN15 Hazelwood’s restriction permits public schools to regulate the content of a school-sponsored activity so long as it is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.FN16

4.      Morse v. Frederick

This most recent case establishes a restriction acknowledging that public schools may limit student speech which could “reasonably [be] viewed as promoting illegal drug use” because schools have an important, and perhaps compelling, interest in discouraging such activity.FN17 Morse suggests that a school may limit student speech because of the school’s important interest in prohibiting the content itself.FN18

B.  Applying these Standards: How Courts Approach Internet Student Speech Off-Campus

The absence of direct Supreme Court precedent has resulted in “a ‘state of tumult about the precise scope of First Amendment rights possessed by students.’” and lower courts have adopted three common approaches to address the matter.FN19

1.      The Geography Approach

This approach distinguishes between “on-campus” and “off-campus” speech. Courts will initially determine if the speech occurred on school grounds or during a school-sponsored activity to ensure there is a sufficient nexus for the court to rely on existing school-speech jurisprudence to render a decision.FN20 This approach has produced mixed results. In Mahaffey v. Aldrich, a district court found that a student website entitled “Satan’s webpage” encouraging violence and containing a death list was outside the school’s reach because the speech did not create an actual disruption under the Tinker standard.FN21 Conversely, in J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found, under the Tinker standard, a school could punish off-campus speech because “where speech that is aimed at a specific school and/or its personnel is brought onto the school campus or accessed at school by its originator, the speech will be considered on-campus speech.”FN22

2.      The Foreseeability Test

Under the foreseeability test, courts justify extending Tinker to “off-campus” speech because of an excerpt in Tinker which states, [C]onduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason- whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior- materially disrupts the classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of other is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.FN23   Both the Second and Third Circuits have held that a school may regulate Internet student speech if it “poses a reasonably foreseeable risk of disruption.”FN24 The Second Circuit held in Wisniewski v. Board of Education Weedsport Central School District that a student-created image of a pistol firing at a teacher’s head was unprotected speech and the school could regulate it.FN25 In J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, an eighth grader created a false profile of a school principal suggesting he was a pedophile and sex addict.FN26 The Third Circuit combined the Tinker and Fraser standards to hold that, under a different set of facts and circumstances, the school would be permitted to punish a student without constitutional violation. FN27

3.      The “Standard First” Approach

Under the “standard first” approach, courts apply existing Supreme Court standards to a particular fact pattern and determine if any of these standards permit the school to prohibit the speech.FN28 Using this approach, a district court in Killion v. Franklin Reg. School District held that a student e-mail with offensive remarks about the school’s athletic director was protected speech under Tinker because it did not run afoul of the “substantial disruption” test.FN29

III.      State Legislatures’ Response

The confusion in the judicial branch has generated a need for state legislatures to enact statutes more clearly delineating schools’ scope of authority. Currently, forty-nine states have bullying statutes.FN30 Sixteen of these specifically address the issue of cyberbullying, with seven including “off-campus” cyberbullying as a problem within schools’ purview.FN31 Cyberbullying statues provide courts with a definitive means of addressing Internet student speech. A uniform approach offers a sense of predictability and stability such that all affected parties are on notice of potential liability for violations. A statute permits state and district school boards to craft policies explicitly articulating schools’ authority over the Internet. Furthermore, cyberbullying statutes reduce the possibility of unreasonable infringement of non-student speech because they define the parameters for the balancing of the two interests occurs.

IV.      Kentucky’s Proposed Response: Amendments to KRS 158.148 and KRS 525.070

To date, Kentucky has not adopted a separate cyberbullying statute or included cyberbullying within its statutory definition of “bullying” or “harassment.” The General Assembly has considered the issue since 2007, proposing numerous amendments to existing statutes which have subsequently stalled in committee.FN32 This indicates that the House sees the need to formulate a response to cyberbullying.

A.    2008 Ky. House Bill No. 91

In 2008, Kentucky’s legislature attempted to pass four versions of Ky. House Bill No. 91; the first contained no reference to cyberbullying.FN33 KRS 158.148 stated school codes must prohibit harassment, intimidation, and bullying; these terms were defined narrowly by KRS 158.441 such that communications referred only to “written” communications occurring on-campus, during a school sponsored activity, or on school transportation.FN34 In the context of a cyberbullying case, a court could view this limitation as possibly including or excluding electronic media because the statute is unclear whether “written” communication means only physical communication. The geographic constraint presents the same shortcoming seen in other states because it would prohibit a court from granting schools the authority to regulate off-campus Internet student speech, like cyberbullying. The third and fourth versions contained a notable change. The amended version of KRS 525.080 specifically stated a student would be guilty of harassing communications if he or she sent an electronic communication “which a reasonable person . . . should know would cause the other student to suffer fear of physical harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment, and which serves not purpose of legitimate communication.”FN35 While it does not explicitly use the term cyberbullying, this marked the first time the Kentucky legislature acknowledged and addressed the issue.

B.     2011 Ky. House Bill No. 370

House Bill 370 proposed shifting some of the language discussed above. The amended version of 158.148 would specifically reference cyberbullying and require schools to include it in their discipline codes.FN36 The House defined cyberbullying as any electronic communication intended to: (1) physically harm a student or their property, (2) substantially interfere with educational opportunities, (3) create an intimidating or threatening education environment, or (4) cause a substantial disruption to the school.FN37 This expansive view of cyberbullying suggests the House was growing increasingly aware of the many ways cyberbullying manifests. Nevertheless, the continued geographical limitation on the school’s authority to address cyberbullying creates the risk that schools will be unable to address a significant amount of Internet student speech and will continue to see the types of disruptions the legislature seeks to avoid.

C.    2012 Ky. House Bill No. 490

House Bill 490 is the most recent set of amendments. “Cyberbullying” is now encapsulated in KRS 158.441’s definition of “bullying”; “electronic acts” is a type of bullying and is defined as “an act committed through the use of a cellular telephone, computer, pager, personal communication device, or other electronic communication device” to inflict mental or physical harm on another student.FN38

V.      Recommendation

The steps taken by the House of Kentucky’s General Assembly are commendable, but these proposals do not provide schools with the necessary tools to reach a significant amount of Internet student speech. The geographic constraint on schools’ authority means administrators will be unable to address an issue until it makes its way onto campus.

A.    Shortcoming of Proposed Kentucky Amendments and the Need to Recognize Cyberbullying as an Important, Perhaps Compelling State Interest

The proposed legislation discussed above, if enacted, means that Kentucky schools will be unable to address a potential disruption until it becomes an actual disruption. This would require administrators to act reactively rather than proactively. Such an approach undermines the notion that schools may act conducive to their primary objectives of safety and education.This limitation may generate more issues than it solves. For example, if schools are permitted to regulate only “on campus” Internet student speech, can schools only monitor speech on school computers or other electronic media? Is it relevant that a student posted a harmful remark during school hours using their cell phone? Would it matter if the school district’s discipline code prohibited the use of privately owned cell phones during regular school hours? The Supreme Court acknowledged schools have an important, if not compelling, interest in deterring drug use amongst students because it is essentially antithetical to schools’ education mission.FN39Similarly, cyberbullying is antithetical to schools’ education mission. Its constant and pervasive nature has a direct impact on schools manifesting in increased academic problems, anxiety, depression, severe isolation, a tendency to carry weapons, and suicide.FN40 Based on the problems caused by cyberbullying, it is imperative that the Kentucky General Assembly succeed in not only passing amended statutes recognizing cyberbullying as an issue in public schools, but also replacing the confining geographic language with a more flexible standard allowing schools to respond preemptively without being overly inclusive.

B.     Vermont and Massachusetts: Models for New Kentucky Legislation

Unlike Kentucky, Vermont and Massachusetts have enacted legislation addressing cyberbullying that extends schools’ authority beyond campus premises.FN41 Vermont’s statute states that bullying includes cyberbullying that “does not occur during the school day on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored activity and can be shown to pose a clear and substantial interference with another student’s right to access educational programs.” Massachusetts’s legislation is similar.FN42 The Massachusetts legislation permits schools to regulate activity occurring off-campus “if the bullying creates a hostile environment at school for the victim, infringes on the rights of the victim at school or materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school.”FN43 The language of these statutes is similar to the foreseeability approach recognized by some courts because both permit school regulation when there is still the possibility of preventing a substantial disruption, thus preserving the school environment.FN44 Vermont and Massachusetts explicitly define the student actions which are considered cyberbullying, much like the definitions seen in Ky. House Bill No. 370.FN45 This specificity provides schools and courts with a clearer understanding of what speech the statute governs. Additionally, both states require local school districts to develop procedures to address cyberbullying including the response and investigation of possible cyberbullying, to define disciplinary actions for offenders, and to develop programs to raise awareness about cyberbullying.FN46 These requirements safeguard against overreach by public schools and demonstrate that it is possible for a state to enact cyberbullying legislation extending beyond the school’s physical parameters while still not trampling on freedom of speech.

C.    Proposed Kentucky Legislation for Online Student Speech

The Kentucky legislature’s primary focus should be recognizing cyberbullying as a distinct, unique issue in public schools. A good start would be combining the approaches taken by Massachusetts and Vermont to establish a separate definition for cyberbullying under KRS 158.441 because that combination would signal the General Assembly’s awareness of cyberbullying and would be consistent with the unique characteristics of cyberbullying. The current definition of cyberbullying in KRS 158.441 is susceptible to overreach by public schools because the only qualification on what constitutes actionable bullying is that it cause mental or physical harm.FN47 A school, for example, could determine a student was in violation if the victimized student claims to have been embarrassed or reduced to tears. A standard such easily manipulated would be improper because schools would have virtually unchecked policing powers. A better definition of cyberbullying in KRS 158.441 would read as follows: “Cyberbullying” is bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication including, but not limited to, the transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted by, an electronic medium including those which the creator assumes another person’s identity or knowingly impersonates another as the author of posted content or messages. Additionally, it includes the distribution by electronic means of a communication to more than one person or the posting of material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or more persons. A student will be determined to have committed an act of cyberbullying against another student if the following conditions are met. The act: (1) is repeated over time; (2) is intended to ridicule, humiliate, or intimidate the victim; and (3) occurs during the school day on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored activity, or before or after the school day on a school bus or at a school-sponsored activity. (4) does not occur during one of the on-campus activities discussed above, but can be shown to pose a clear and substantial interference with another student’s right to access educational programs.FN48 This definition has several benefits. First, it narrows the scope of Internet speech subject to regulation, reducing potential infringement of constitutionally protected speech. Second, it recognizes the unique nature of student Internet speech. Third, it outlines a clear analytical framework for Kentucky courts to use in future cyberbullying lawsuits, resulting in increased predictability. Fourth, it puts all potential parties on notice of the types of Internet speech consider within the school’s purview. Last, this construction of cyberbullying is consistent with the standard articulated in Tinker. While Kentucky courts would be recognizing a school’s authority “beyond the schoolhouse gate,” this authority would stem from the likelihood the speech will negatively impact students within the school environment. Thus, widening the scope of school-regulated speech would permit the Kentucky legislature and courts to continue to respect the sanctity of the schoolhouse gate.

Conclusion

The Internet has radically changed the framework for student speech analysis causing lower courts to respond in varied, and sometimes surprising, ways. Previously, off-campus student speech was distinctly beyond the schoolhouse gate and free from constraint. This spatial distinction has declined with the prevalence and pervasiveness of the Internet, which has blurred the borders between many areas of regulation. While certainly not all off-campus speech is subject to schools’ authority, those that would create a substantial disruption should be subject to school regulation.FN49 In order to navigate the challenges presented in addressing off-campus Internet student speech, Kentucky’s General Assembly needs to enact an amended version of statutes 158.148 and 158.441. The geographical limitation contained within 158.148 needs to be replaced with more expansive language, similar to Massachusetts’ and Vermont’s statutes.FN50 Additionally, 158.441 needs to provide a definition of cyberbullying. Such changes would recognize that a geographical distinction is inadequate for schools to provide a safe and productive learning environment. Without these changes, courts will be left with little to base their decisions on except a “very tricky calculus,”FN51which will not produce the outcomes necessary to prevent future victims of cyberbullying.

FN1. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

FN2. New York 14-Year-Old Kameron Jacobsen Bullied to Death, CBS New York, http://newyork.cbsloc al.com/2011/09/15/exclusive-new-york-14-year-old-bullied-to-death/ (last visited June 3, 2013).

FN3. Id.; Parents Speak Out on Bullying After Son’s Death, CBS New York, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500172_162-20106690.html (last visited June 3, 2013).

FN4. New York 14-Year Old Kameron Jacobsen Bullied to Death, supra note 2.

FN5. Rachael was a Bullitt County student when she committed suicide after receiving threatening anonymous e-mails from classmates. Janelle McDonald, Family of Teen who Took Her Own Life Pushing Lawmakers for Anti-Bullying Ordinance, Wave3 News, http://www.wave3.com/story/6029598/family-of-teen-who-took-her-own-life-pushing-lawmakers-for-anti-bullying-ordinance (last visited June 3, 2013) (stating Rachael received an e-mail saying, “ ‘[I am not] going to put [you] in the hospital, [I’m] going to put [you] in the morgue.’”).

FN6. Katherine Ng, Digital Dilemmas: Responding to Cyberbullying in Nova Scotia, 22 EDUC. & L.J. 63, 65-66 (2012); see also Gwenn Schrugin O’Keeffe, Kathleen Clarke-Pearson, and the Council on Communications and Media, Clinical Report: The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families, 127 Pediatrics 800, 800-01 (2011). (stating the internet has assisted in self-identification by adolescents).

FN7. Ng, supra note 6 at 68; see also Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin, Cyberbullying Research Summary: Cyberbullying and Strain, 1, 1 http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_ and_strain_research_fact_sheet.pdf (last visited June 3, 2013).

FN8. Ng, supra note 6 at 69; see also Hinduja and Patchin, supra note 7 at 1.

FN9. Ng, supra note 6 at 70; Allison Belnap, Comment, Tinker at a Breaking Point: Why the Specter of Cyberbullying Cannot Excuse Impermissible Public School Regulation of Off-Campus Student Speech, BYU L. Rev. 501, 501 (2011) (quoting Jeff Lieberman, Rutgers Student’s Suicide Prompts privacy, Cyber-Bullying Debates (PBS NewsHour broadcast Oct. 1, 2010), transcript available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec10/rutgers1_10-01.html); see also Hinduja and Patchin, supra note 7 at 1.

FN10. Ng, supra note 6 at 68.

FN11. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 514 (1969).

FN12. Id. at 514. (“As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred.”).

FN13. See Bethlehem Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 685-86 (1986). The Court later stated in a footnote the Fraser standard is separate and distinct from Tinker. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 271, n. 4. (“The decision in Fraser rested on the ‘vulgar,’ ‘lewd,’ and ‘plainly offensive’ character if a speech delivered at an official school assembly rather than on any propensity of the speech to ‘materially disrup[t] class work or involv[e] substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”) (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969)).

FN14. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683, 685-86.

FN15. Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 281.

FN16. Id. at 273.

FN17. Morse v. Frederick, 484 U.S. 393, 403 (2007).

FN18. See Caitlin May, Comment, “Internet-Savvy Students” and Bewildered Educators: Student Internet Speech is Creating New Legal Issues for the Educational Community, 58 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1105, 1111 (2009) (analyzing the Court’s rationale in Hazelwood); Harriet A. Hoder, Note, Supervising Cyberspace: A Simple Threshold for Public School Jurisdiction over Student’s Online Activity, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1563, 1574-75 (2009).

FN19. Stephanie Klupinski, Note, Getting Past the Schoolhouse Gate: Rethinking Student Speech in the Digital Age, 71 Ohio St. L.J. 611, 625 (2010) (quoting Robert D. Richards & Clay Calvert, Columbine Fallout: The Long-Term Effects on Free Expression Take Hold in Public Schools, 83 B.U. L. Rev. 1089, 1139 (2003)); May, supra note 18 at 1128-31.

FN20. May, supra note 18 at 1128; Hoder, supra note 18 at 1583-85; see also Sandy S. Li, The Need for a New, Uniform Standard: The Continued Threat of Internet-Related Student Speech, 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 65, 78; Belnap, supra note 9, at 510, Klupinski, supra note 19, at 627.

FN21. Mahaffey ex rel. Mahaffey v. Aldrich, 236 F. Supp. 2d 779, 782-84 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“In the case at bar, there is no evidence that the website interfered with the work of the school or that any other student's rights were impinged.”).

FN22. J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 807 A. 2d 847, 865 (Pa. 2002).

FN23. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969) (emphasis added).

FN24. Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d. 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2007); J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011).

FN25. Wisniewski, 494 F.3d at 36-40.

FN26. Blue Mountain, 650 F.3d at 920.

FN27. Id. at 928, 932-33 (holding J.S.’s suspension was a violation of the First Amendment because it did not cause a substantial disruption in the school under the Tinker standard).

FN28. Klupinski, supra note 19 at 638-39.

FN29. Killion v. Franklin Reg. Sch. Dist., 136 F. Supp. 2d 446, 455 (W.D. Penn. 2001) (“Although the intended audience was undoubtedly connected to Franklin Regional High School, the absence of threats or actual disruption lead us to conclude that Paul's suspension was improper.”).

FN30. See Ala. Code §16-28-3.1(b)(6) (2013); Alaska Stat. Ann. §14.33.200 (2013); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §15-341(37) (2013); Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-514(b)(2) (2013); Cal. Educ. Code §32261(d) (2013); Colo. Rev. Stat. §22-32-109.1(1)(b) (2013); Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-222d(a)(1) (2013); Del. Code Ann. tit. 14 §4112D(a) (2013); Fla. Stat. §1006.147(a) (2013); Ga. Code §20-2-751.4 (2013); Haw. Code R. § 8-19-2 (2013); Idaho Code Ann. §18-917A(2) (2013); 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27-23.7(b) (2013); Ind. Code §20-33-8-0.2 (2013); Iowa Code §280.28(2)(b) (2013); Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-8256(a)(1) (2013); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §158.183(1)-(2) (2013); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §17:416(d) (2013); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A(2)(B) §6554 (2013); Md. Code Ann. Education §7-424.3(a) (2013); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 37O(a) (2013); Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1310b(8)b (2013); Minn. Stat. §121A.0695 (2013); Miss. Code Ann. §37-11-67(1) (2013); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 160.775(2) (2013); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-2, 137(2) (2013); Nev. Rev. Stat. §388.135 (2013); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F:3(I) (2013); N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A:37-14 (2013); N.M. Stat. Ann. §6.12.7 (2013); N.Y. Educ. Law §11(7) (McKinney 2013); N.C. Gen. Stat. §115C-407.15(a) (2013); N.D. Cent. Code §15.1-19-17(1) (2013); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3313.666(A)(2) (2013); 2013 Okla. Sess. Laws 311; Or. Rev. Stat. §339.351(2) (2013); 24 Pa. Cons. Stat. §13-1301.1-A(e) (2013); R.I. Gen. Laws §16-21-33(a) (2013); S.C. Code Ann. § 59-73-120(1) (2013); S.D. Codified Laws §13-32-15 (2013); Tenn. Code Ann. §49-6-1015(3) (2013); Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §37.0832(a) (2013); Utah Code Ann. §53A-11a-201 (2013); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 11(26), (32) (2013); Va. Code Ann. §22.1-279.6 (2013); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §28A.300.285(2) (2013); W. Va. Code Ann. §18-2C-2(a) (2013); Wis. Stat. §118.46(1) (2013); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §21-4-312(a) (2013).

FN31. Statutes specifically referencing cyberbullying include: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. The following states have permitted schools to regulate and punish off campus behavior: Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Tennessee, and Vermont. See Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-217(c) (West  (2013); Cal. Educ. Code §32261 (West 2013); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §10-222d(a)(6), (b)(15) (West 2013); Haw. Code R. § 8-19-2 (2013); Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-8256(a)(2)-(3), (c) (West 2013); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §40.7 (2013); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, § 37O(b) (West 2013); Mo. Ann Rev. Stat. § 160.775 (West 2013); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.135(7) (West 2013); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F:3(V) (2013); N.Y. Educ. Law §11(7) (McKinney 2013); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §115C-407.15(a) (West 2013); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §339.351 (West 2013); Tenn. Code Ann. §49-6-1015 (West 2013); Utah Code Ann. §53A-11a-201(1)-(2) (West 2013); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §28A.300.285 (West 2013).

FN32. H.B. 91, 2007 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Nov. 26, 2007); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Jan. 8, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Mar. 19, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Apr. 15, 2008); H.B. 370, 2011 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2011); H.B. 336, 2012 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012); H.B. 490, 2012 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012).

FN33. H.B. 91, 2007 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Nov. 26, 2007); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Jan. 8, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Mar. 19,2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Apr. 15, 2008).

FN34. H.B. 91, 2007 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Nov. 26,2007) (“‘Harassment, intimidation, or bullying’ means a repeated verbal, nonverbal, or written communication transmitted; repeated physical acts committed; or any other repeat behavior committed by a student against another student on school premises, on school-sponsored transportation, or at a school-sponsored event…”).

FN35. H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Mar. 19, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Apr. 15, 2008).

FN36. H.B. 370, 2011 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2011) (“Amend KRS 158.148 to require the discipline code to prohibit harassment, intimidation, bullying, or cyberbullying against students…”) (emphasis added).

FN. 37.Id.

FN. 38. H.B. 490, 2012 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012).

FN 39. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 407 (2007) (stating that prior Supreme Court cases have recognized the dangers of illegal drug use and schools’ interest in protecting students from the dangers of drug abuse).

FN. 40. See Ng, supra note 6 at 70; see also Natasha Rose Manuel, Cyber-bullying: Its Recent Emergence and Needed Legislation to Protect Adolescent Victims, 13 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 219, 225-28 (2011), Hoder, supra note 18 at 1566.

FN. 41. Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 71, § 37O(b) (2013); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 11(a)(32) (2013).

FN. 42. Tit. 16, § 11(a)(32)(C)(ii) (emphasis added); ch. 71, § 37O(b).

FN. 43. Ch. 71, § 37O(b).

FN. 44. Compare ch. 71, § 37O(b) and tit. 16, § 11(a)(32)(C))(ii) with Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d. 34, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2007) and J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 932-33 (3d Cir. 2009).

FN. 45. Compare H.B. 336,  H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) and H.B. 370, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) with ch. 71, § 370 and tit. 16, § 11.

FN. 46. Ch. 71, § 37O(c)-(h); tit. 16, § 11.

FN. 47. KRS 158. 441 states “‘Harassment, intimidation, or bullying means: Any intentional written, verbal, electronic, physical act that a student has exhibited toward another student more than once that causes mental or physical harm to the other student.” H.B. 490, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) (emphasis added).

FN. 48. This proposed statutory construction is based on the legislation in Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Vermont. See H.B. 370, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2011); ch. 71 § 37O(a)-(b); tit. 16, § 11(a)(32).

FN. 49. May, supra note 18 at 1141, Li, supra note 20 at 87-91, Klupinski, supra note 20 at 643-50.

FN. 50. Compare H.B. 336, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) and H.B. 490, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) with ch. 71, § 37O(b) and tit. 16, § 11(a)(32)(C)(ii).

FN. 51 May, supra note 18 at 1141. (quoting Victoria Kim, Suit Blends Internet, Free Speech, School, L.A. Times, Aug. 3, 2008, at B1).