The well-settled purpose of a proper temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the merits of an action can be decided. Requests for injunctive relief frequently arise in employment litigation, particularly where employees separate from employment. While Kentucky is a notice-pleading jurisdiction, a recent Kentucky Court of Appeals interlocutory order reminds us of the importance of ensuring the relief sought when seeking injunctive relief mirrors the relief sought in the causes of action pled in the complaint.
In University of Kentucky v. Hongbin Zhang, No. 2026-CA-0878-I, decided Sept. 18, 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals dissolved a temporary injunction granted by the lower court that enjoined the University from terminating the plaintiff faculty member while his employment was under administrative review. The plaintiff pled a violation of Kentucky’s Open Records Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the principle that trial courts must not grant any injunctive relief where success on the underlying merits cannot result in the injunctive relief sought.
After learning his termination was likely, the faculty member submitted an open records request seeking documents underlying the University’s decision that was likely to result in his termination. He sought the records to assist a potential appeal. The University produced limited documents with heavy redactions. The faculty member then filed suit, alleging a violation of Kentucky’s Open Records Act and seeking unredacted records and injunctive relief for continued employment while the dispute was resolved.
The trial court found the requested records were directly relevant to the University’s employment decision and the faculty member’s ability to evaluate the decision and appeal. The trial court reasoned the faculty member would suffer irreparable harm if his employment ended without the ability to evaluate an appeal.
The University appealed and argued, among other reasons, that the injunction could not stand because its remedy had no relationship to the Open Records Act claim. Specifically, the University argued that, even if the faculty member prevailed on the Open Records Act claim, the available remedy would be the disclosure of records, not the continued employment that the injunction provided.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the University’s position, reaffirming the longstanding principle that ordinary consequences of job loss are not irreparable harm because reinstatement and back pay at the conclusion of proceedings are adequate remedies that make pre-trial injunctive relief on those grounds improper. The Court held the faculty member failed to demonstrate the Open Records Act entitled him to “perpetual employment by means of a temporary injunction, pending the disposition of an administrative appeal process, so long as he previously made an open records request to his employer.” Rather, the Act only provides a trial court the ability to enjoin the disclosure of disputed records to preserve the status quo.
In sum, this decision serves as an important reminder that temporary injunctive relief must be tied to the claims asserted and the remedies available if those claims succeed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]