CARTER CIRCE ERED UITJDIST COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCK COURT CARTER CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 17-CI-00075 formerly Elliott Circuit Court Case No. 14-CI-00061) DONNA ADKINS, ET. AL., PLAINTIFFS, VS. JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL BY JURY STEPHEN HARPER, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS. This matter came before the Court on Thursday, March 16, 2017, for a Trial by Jury. The jury was selected and empaneled, and twelve (12) jurors were seated. Such jurors were as follows: Jamie McGlone (No. 1019), Luther Jarvis (No. 1088), Clodes King, Jr. (No. 1036), Adawnya Rodgers (No. 1297), April Russell (No. 780), Carolyn Adams (No. 1193), Suzanne Leach (No. 472), Martin Boggs (No. 303), Betty Henthorn (N o. 564), Pamela Lawhorn (No. 205), April Bolyard (No. 266), and Jeremy Carter (No. 930). While the Court originally intended to proceed with an alternate juror, an issue arose after the exercise of strikes which resulted in the Court discharging a juror. As a result of the juror issue, the Defendants moved the Court for a mistrial; however, such Motion was overruled by the Court. Reference is hereby made to the record of the proceedings conducted on March 17, 2017, for the Court?s ruling upon the Motion for mistrial. Opening statements were conducted on March 17, 2017, and the Trial proceeded thereafter on March 21, 2017; March 22, 2017; March 23, 2017; and March 24, 2017. The Plaintiffs began presenting their proof on March 17, 2017, and rested their case on March 23, 2017. At that time, the Defendants moved for a directed verdict as to the retaliation claim of the Plaintiff, Colleen Payton. Such Motion was denied. The Defendants began presenting their proof on March 23, 2017, and rested their case on March 24, 2017. After the Defendants rested their case, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants moved for directed verdict. All Motions for directed verdict were denied. On March 24, 2017, the Court instructed the jury, and closing arguments were presented. Thereafter, the jury retired for deliberations, returning a verdict later that evening. Juror Jeremy Carter (N o. 930) was selected by the jury as the Foreperson. Interrogatory No. was identi?ed as Colleen Payton?s claim of hostile work environment. Interrogatory No. 1A read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to ALL of the following statements: A. that while both Stephen Harper and Colleen Payton were employed by the Kentucky Department of Corrections, Stephen Harper sexually harassed Colleen Payton by subjecting her, because of her gender, to unwelcomed verbal or physical sexual conduct; B. that the harassment was suf?ciently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of Colleen Payton's employment and to create an abusive or hostile work environment; C. that Colleen Payton subjectively perceived the work environment to be abusive or hostile; AND D. that a reasonable person would perceive the work environment to be abusive or hostile. The jury placed a checkmark next to ?Yes,? and Interrogatory No. 1A was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (N o. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 1B read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to BOTH of the following statements: A. that the Kentucky Department of Corrections exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior, AND B. that Colleen Payton unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the Kentucky Department of Corrections or to avoid harm otherwise. The jury placed a checkmark next to and Interrogatory No. 1B was signed by nine (9) jurors, indicating that a unanimous verdict was not reached. Interrogatory No. 1C read as follows: From the evidence presented, what sum of money do you believe will reasonably compensate Colleen Payton for such mental and emotional distress as you believe from the evidence she has suffered as a direct result of the hostile work environment described in Interrogatory No. The jury placed the sum of $400,000.00 in the space provided. Interrogatory No. lC was signed by ten (10) jurors, indicating that a unanimous verdict was not reached. Interrogatory No. 2 was identi?ed as Donna Adkins?s claim of hostile work environment. Interrogatory No. 2A read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to ALL of the following statements: A. that while both Stephen Harper and Donna Adkins were employed by the Kentucky Department of Corrections, Stephen Harper sexually harassed Donna Adkins by subjecting her, because of her gender, to unwelcomed verbal or physical sexual conduct; B. that the harassment was suf?ciently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of Donna Adkins?s employment and to create an abusive or hostile work environment; C. that Donna Adkins subjectively perceived the work environment to be abusive or hostile; AND D. that a reasonable person would perceive the work environment to be abusive or hostile. The jury placed a checkmark next to ?Yes,? and Interrogatory No. 2A was signed by the oreperson, Jeremy Carter (N o. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 28 read as follows: Are you satis?ed ?om the evidence as to BOTH of the following statements: A. that the Kentucky Department of Corrections exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior, AND B. that Donna Adkins unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the Kentucky Department of Corrections or to avoid harm otherwise. The jury placed a checkmark next to and Interrogatory No. 2B was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (N o. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 2C read as follows: From the evidence presented, what sum of money do you believe will reasonably compensate Donna Adkins for such mental and emotional distress as you believe from the evidence she has suffered as a direct result of the hostile work environment described in Interrogatory No. The jury placed the sum of $400,000.00 in the space provided. Interrogatory No. 2C was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (N o. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 3 was identi?ed as Jennifer Dennis?s claim of hostile work environment. Interrogatory No. 3A read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to ALL of the following statements: A. that while both Stephen Harper and Jennifer Dennis were employed by the Kentucky Department of Corrections, Stephen Harper sexually harassed Jennifer Dennis by subjecting her, because of her gender, to unwelcomed verbal or physical sexual conduct; B. that the harassment was suf?ciently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of Jennifer Dennis?s employment and to create an abusive or hostile work environment; C. that Jennifer Dennis subjectively perceived the work environment to be abusive or hostile; AND D. that a reasonable person would perceive the work environment to be abusive or hostile. The jury placed a checkmark next to ?Yes,? and Interrogatory No. 3A was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (No. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 3B read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to BOTH of the following statements: A. that the Kentucky Department of Corrections exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior, AND B. that Jennifer Dennis unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the Kentucky Department of Corrections or to avoid harm otherwise. The jury placed a checkmark next to and Interrogatory No. 3B was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (No. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 3C read as follows: From the evidence presented, what sum of money do you believe will reasonably compensate Jennifer Dennis for such mental and emotional distress as you believe from the evidence she has suffered as a direct result of the hostile work environment described in Interrogatory No. The jury placed the sum of $400,000.00 in the space provided. Interrogatory No. 3C was signed by ten (10) jurors, indicating that a unanimous verdict was not reached. Interrogatory No. 4 was identi?ed as Lisa Suliman?s claim of hostile work environment. Interrogatory No. 4A read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to ALL of the following statements: A. that while both Stephen Harper and Lisa Suliman were employed by the Kentucky Department of Corrections, Stephen Harper sexually harassed Lisa Suliman by subjecting her, because of her gender, to unwelcomed verbal or physical sexual conduct; B. that the harassment was suf?ciently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of Lisa Suliman?s employment and to create an abusive or hostile work environment; C. that Lisa Suliman subjectively perceived the work environment to be abusive or hostile; AND D. that a reasonable person would perceive the work environment to be abusive or hostile. The jury placed a checkmark next to ?Yes,? and Interrogatory No. 4A was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (No. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 4B read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to BOTH of the following statements: A. that the Kentucky Department of Corrections exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior, AND B. that Lisa Suliman unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the Kentucky Department of Corrections or to avoid harm otherwise. The jury placed a checkmark next to and Interrogatory No. 4B was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (N o. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Interrogatory No. 4C read as follows: From the evidence presented, what sum of money do you believe will reasonably compensate Lisa Suliman for such mental and emotional distress as you believe from the evidence she has suffered as a direct result of the hostile work environment described in Interrogatory No. The jury placed the sum of $400,000.00 in the space provided. Interrogatory No. 3C was signed by nine (9) jurors, indicating that a unanimous verdict was not reached. Interrogatory No. 5 was identi?ed as Colleen Payton?sclaim of retaliation. Interrogatory No. 5A read as follows: Are you satis?ed from the evidence as to ALL of the following statements: A. that Colleen Payton engaged in a protected activity by reporting acts of sexual harassment by Stephen Harper on May 24, 2013; B. that Warden Joseph Meko knew that Colleen Payton had reported sexual harassment by Stephen Harper; C. that Warden Joseph Meko took employment action which was adverse to Colleen Payton by issuing a written reprimand on July 22, 2013, and/or a three (3) day suspension 0 11 August 7, 2014, against Colleen Payton; AND D. that but for the report of sexual harassment, Warden Joseph Meko would not have taken the aforesaid adverse employment action against Colleen Payton on July 22, 2013, and/or August 7, 2014. The jury placed a checkmark next to and Interrogatory No. 5A was signed by the Foreperson, Jeremy Carter (No. 930), indicating a unanimous verdict. Because Interrogatory No. 5A was answered Interrogatory No. 5B was left blank. This concluded the jury?s verdict. Following the Trial, the Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to KRS 344.450. The Court has carefully considered the record, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law. To the extent set forth hereinafter, the Court hereby SUSTAINS the Motion of the Plaintiffs, with a separate Opinion to be entered addressing the Court?s rationale. WHEREFORE, with the Court being otherwise fully and suf?ciently advised, it is hereby ORDERED and ADIUDGED as follows: 1. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, Colleen Payton, and against the Defendant, Kentucky Department of Corrections, in the amount of $400,000.00. 2. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, Donna Adkins, and against the Defendant, Kentucky Department of Corrections, in the amount of $400,000.00. 3. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, Jennifer Dennis, and against the Defendant, Kentucky Department of Corrections, in the amount of $400,000.00. 4. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, Lisa Suliman, and against the Defendant, Kentucky Department of Corrections, in the amount of $400,000.00. 5. Pursuant to KRS 344.450, the Defendant, Kentucky Department of Corrections, is ORDERED to pay attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $256,768.84 to the Plaintiffs and their counsel, with the breakdown of same being as follows: Costs of Pillersdorf, DeRossett Lane 16,931.47 Costs of Joe F. Childers Associates 3,358.62 Attorney fees of Pillersdorf, DeRosett Lane Attorney fees of Joe F. Childers Associates 80,616.25 $155,862.50 6. This matter shall remain on the docket for the entry of a separate Opinion addressing the award of attorney fees and costs herein. Otherwise, this is a ?nal and appealable judgment, with there being no just cause for delay. IT IS SO ORDERED this the day of September, 2017. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true copies of the foregoing Final Judgment have been served on the parties by mailing the same to their counsel of record as follows: Hon. Joe F. Childers Hon. Bethany N. Baxter Joe F. Childers Associates The Lexington Building 201 West Short Street Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Hon. Ned Pillersdorf Pillersdorf, DeRossett Lane 124 West Court Street Prestonsburg, KY 41653 Hon. Edward A. Baylous, 11 Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Of?ce of Legal Counsel 125 Holmes Street Frankfort, KY 40601 This the 5 %day of September, 2017. Larry D. Thompson, Carter Circuit Clerk, by: 770W TRUE 0 OPY LARRY D. THOMPSON CLERK CAR ER COURT .520! ?7 /f (1 DC