Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff

The Floyd County Board of Education (the board of education) (defendant) was contemplating a systemic reorganization following a broad-scale investigation by the Kentucky Department of Education and the removal of a number of the school district’s personnel. The board of education held a number of closed-session meetings at the school district’s central office to discuss the proposed reorganization, which would affect all district employees. The minutes of the closed-session meetings indicated that the purpose of the closed session was to discuss personnel. The board of education’s legal counsel was not present at the closed-session meetings. Shortly after the conclusion of the closed-session meetings, the board of education held an open-session meeting and voted to adopt a reorganization plan that eliminated the position of Wayne Ratliff and two other employees (collectively, the employees) (plaintiffs) who had previously threatened to file a lawsuit if the reorganization plan moved forward. The employees filed suit, alleging that the reorganization plan was invalid because the board of education’s deliberations occurred during unlawfully convened closed sessions. At the hearing before the trial court, the board of education asserted that the purpose of the closed session was to discuss pending litigation and, specifically, the potential lawsuit from the employees. Kentucky’s open-meetings law provided that closed-session meetings could be convened to discuss proposed or pending litigation and to discuss personnel matters that could lead to the appointment, discipline, or dismissal of individual employees. The open-meetings law further provided that all exceptions had to be strictly construed. The trial court determined the executive-session meetings were lawful. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s determination, finding that the open-meetings law clearly intended for the exception to apply to preparation strategy or tactics related to litigation or anything legally protected by the attorney-client relationship. However, the court of appeals further noted that the exception was not intended to apply to any time that an attorney was present or there was a remote possibility of a lawsuit. The board of education appealed the decision of the appellate court.