Runner v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 11/20/2012; Defendants motion for summary judgment is SUSTAINED and Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a final and appealable order. cc: plaintiff pro se, counsel (TLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-519-H
BETTY G. RUNNER

PLAINTIFF

v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants, the Commonwealth of Kentucky and others, have moved to dismiss this
complaint on jurisdictional grounds and for summary judgment on various other grounds.
Plaintiff, Betty Runner, has filed as many as fourteen (14) discrimination complaints against
agencies of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and this complaint is only the latest.
Plaintiff was last dismissed from employment with the Commonwealth on March 20,
2008. She has not applied for employment since that time. Nevertheless, she has pursued
numerous complaints regarding her termination and treatment afterwards. The Court has
reviewed the current complaint, the pending motions and Plaintiff’s responses. The Court finds
no basis for continuing this lawsuit.
The most obvious reasons why Plaintiff’s discrimination claims cannot proceed is that
they are barred by the ninety-day statute of limitations provision. Here, Plaintiff failed to file her
federal complaint for more than a year after the EEOC sent her a notice of right to sue. Although
Plaintiff claims that she did not receive that notice, she presents no basis in fact and law for
ignoring the ninety-day statute of limitations for such a lengthy period of time. Plaintiff’s other
ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are also barred by the one-year statute of limitations under
Kentucky law. Plaintiff offers no reasonable grounds for ignoring these limitations.

In this case, with such a long litigation history, the Court does not feel that it is necessary
to review each and every grounds for granting Defendants’ motion. Suffice to say that the Court
has reviewed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and agrees with all of the grounds
stated therein. The Court adopts those grounds as additional reasons for granting the current
motions.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
SUSTAINED and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final and appealable order.

November 20, 2012

cc:

Betty G. Runner, Pro Se
Counsel of Record