Opinion of the Court by
Justice SCHRODER.
Appellant Michael Mitchell appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the University of Kentucky and several of its employees and entities (collectively “UK”), in a suit where Mitchell claimed UK terminated his employment in violation of public policy. We conclude that Mitchell’s discharge was contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy, i.e., the right to bear arms as evidenced by the Kentucky Revised Statutes. We further conclude that an explicit legislative statement prohibited Mitchell’s discharge, and that the reason for his discharge was his exercise of a right conferred by well-established legislative enactments; Therefore, UK was not entitled to summary judgment, and we remand for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts in this case are almost entirely undisputed. In 2009, Mitchell was employed at-will as an anesthesia technician at the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, while also attending the University as a graduate student. He had a valid license to carry a concealed deadly weapon pursuant to KRS 237.110 (“concealed carry license”). On April 22, 2009, several of Mitchell’s coworkers were under the impression that he had a firearm in his employee locker. The employees reported this to hospital administration.
Hospital administrators contacted the University of Kentucky Police Department. When questioned, Mitchell denied having a firearm in his locker. Police and hospital administrators searched Mitchell’s locker with his permission, but found no weapons. Mitchell informed officers that he had a concealed carry license and admitted that he kept a firearm in his vehicle, which was parked on University property at Commonwealth Stadium. UK suspended Mitchell’s employment pending an investigation.
Campus police escorted Mitchell to his car, where he showed them the semiautomatic pistol he had stored in his vehicle. In their respective briefs, the parties agree that Mitchell’s weapon was stored in the vehicle’s glove compartment. However, at an unemployment benefits hearing, Mitchell testified that the weapon was stored in his vehicle’s armrest. Police confiscated the weapon pending an investigation. On April 29, 2009, the University terminated Mitchell’s employment for violation of its policy prohibiting possession of a deadly weapon on University property or while conducting University business.
Mitchell filed suit, alleging termination in violation of public policy, specifically, his right to bear arms as set forth in the United States Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution, and the Kentucky Revised Statutes. After interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, the circuit court concluded that UK terminated Mitchell pursuant to a policy authorized by law. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of UK, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and that UK was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After filing a notice of appeal, Mitchell filed a motion to transfer the appeal from the Court of Appeals to this Court. This Court then granted Mitchell’s motion. CR 74.02.
II. ANALYSIS
“The standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether [898]*898the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Coomer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 319 S.W.3d 366, 370 (Ky.2010) (quoting Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky.App.1996)). “Because summary judgment involves only legal questions and the existence of any disputed material issues of fact, an appellate court need not defer to the trial court’s decision and will review the issue de novo.” Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky.App.2001) (footnote omitted).
Mitchell contends he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. Ordinarily, an at-will employee may be discharged “for good cause, for no cause, or for a cause that some might view as morally indefensible.”. Firestone Textile Co. Div. v. Meadows, 666 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Ky.1983) (citing Production Oil Co. v. Johnson, 313 S.W.2d 411 (Ky.1958); Scroghan v. Kraftco Corp., 551 S.W.2d 811 (Ky.App.1977)). However, there is “a narrow public policy exception” to the terminable-at-will doctrine, which is subject to the following limitations:
1) The discharge must be contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law.
2) That policy must be evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision.
3) The decision of whether the public policy asserted meets these criteria is a question of law for the court to decide, not a question of fact.
Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Ky.1985). See also Firestone, 666 S.W.2d at 731 (quoting Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis.2d 561, 335 N.W.2d 834, 835 (1983)). In addition, a discharge is actionable as being contrary to public policy only (1) where there are “explicit legislative statements prohibiting the discharge,” (2) where “the alleged reason for the discharge ... was the employee’s failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment,” or (3) when “the reason for the discharge was the employee’s exercise of a right conferred by well-established legislative enactment.” Hill v. Kentucky Lottery Corp., 327 S.W.3d 412, 422 (Ky.2010) (quoting Grzyb, 700 S.W.2d at 402).
It is beyond question that public institutions of higher education have “the power and authority to govern and control the method and purpose of use of property owned or occupied by their respective institution[s].... ” KRS 164.975(1). In O’Leary v. Commonwealth, our predecessor Court recognized the authority of a public university to control the use of its property. 441 S.W.2d 150, 156-57 (Ky.1969). The narrow question presented in this case is whether any fundamental and well-defined public policy limits the authority of a university to control the possession of deadly weapons on its campus, and therefore renders Mitchell’s termination unlawful as a violation of public policy.
“[T]he long-standing practice of this Court is to refrain from reaching constitutional issues when other, non-constitutional grounds can be relied upon.” Baker v. Fletcher, 204 S.W.3d 589, 597-98 (Ky.2006) (citing Dawson v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion of the Court by
Justice SCHRODER.
Appellant Michael Mitchell appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the University of Kentucky and several of its employees and entities (collectively “UK”), in a suit where Mitchell claimed UK terminated his employment in violation of public policy. We conclude that Mitchell’s discharge was contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy, i.e., the right to bear arms as evidenced by the Kentucky Revised Statutes. We further conclude that an explicit legislative statement prohibited Mitchell’s discharge, and that the reason for his discharge was his exercise of a right conferred by well-established legislative enactments; Therefore, UK was not entitled to summary judgment, and we remand for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts in this case are almost entirely undisputed. In 2009, Mitchell was employed at-will as an anesthesia technician at the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, while also attending the University as a graduate student. He had a valid license to carry a concealed deadly weapon pursuant to KRS 237.110 (“concealed carry license”). On April 22, 2009, several of Mitchell’s coworkers were under the impression that he had a firearm in his employee locker. The employees reported this to hospital administration.
Hospital administrators contacted the University of Kentucky Police Department. When questioned, Mitchell denied having a firearm in his locker. Police and hospital administrators searched Mitchell’s locker with his permission, but found no weapons. Mitchell informed officers that he had a concealed carry license and admitted that he kept a firearm in his vehicle, which was parked on University property at Commonwealth Stadium. UK suspended Mitchell’s employment pending an investigation.
Campus police escorted Mitchell to his car, where he showed them the semiautomatic pistol he had stored in his vehicle. In their respective briefs, the parties agree that Mitchell’s weapon was stored in the vehicle’s glove compartment. However, at an unemployment benefits hearing, Mitchell testified that the weapon was stored in his vehicle’s armrest. Police confiscated the weapon pending an investigation. On April 29, 2009, the University terminated Mitchell’s employment for violation of its policy prohibiting possession of a deadly weapon on University property or while conducting University business.
Mitchell filed suit, alleging termination in violation of public policy, specifically, his right to bear arms as set forth in the United States Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution, and the Kentucky Revised Statutes. After interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, the circuit court concluded that UK terminated Mitchell pursuant to a policy authorized by law. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of UK, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and that UK was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After filing a notice of appeal, Mitchell filed a motion to transfer the appeal from the Court of Appeals to this Court. This Court then granted Mitchell’s motion. CR 74.02.
II. ANALYSIS
“The standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether [898]*898the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Coomer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 319 S.W.3d 366, 370 (Ky.2010) (quoting Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky.App.1996)). “Because summary judgment involves only legal questions and the existence of any disputed material issues of fact, an appellate court need not defer to the trial court’s decision and will review the issue de novo.” Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky.App.2001) (footnote omitted).
Mitchell contends he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. Ordinarily, an at-will employee may be discharged “for good cause, for no cause, or for a cause that some might view as morally indefensible.”. Firestone Textile Co. Div. v. Meadows, 666 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Ky.1983) (citing Production Oil Co. v. Johnson, 313 S.W.2d 411 (Ky.1958); Scroghan v. Kraftco Corp., 551 S.W.2d 811 (Ky.App.1977)). However, there is “a narrow public policy exception” to the terminable-at-will doctrine, which is subject to the following limitations:
1) The discharge must be contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law.
2) That policy must be evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision.
3) The decision of whether the public policy asserted meets these criteria is a question of law for the court to decide, not a question of fact.
Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Ky.1985). See also Firestone, 666 S.W.2d at 731 (quoting Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis.2d 561, 335 N.W.2d 834, 835 (1983)). In addition, a discharge is actionable as being contrary to public policy only (1) where there are “explicit legislative statements prohibiting the discharge,” (2) where “the alleged reason for the discharge ... was the employee’s failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment,” or (3) when “the reason for the discharge was the employee’s exercise of a right conferred by well-established legislative enactment.” Hill v. Kentucky Lottery Corp., 327 S.W.3d 412, 422 (Ky.2010) (quoting Grzyb, 700 S.W.2d at 402).
It is beyond question that public institutions of higher education have “the power and authority to govern and control the method and purpose of use of property owned or occupied by their respective institution[s].... ” KRS 164.975(1). In O’Leary v. Commonwealth, our predecessor Court recognized the authority of a public university to control the use of its property. 441 S.W.2d 150, 156-57 (Ky.1969). The narrow question presented in this case is whether any fundamental and well-defined public policy limits the authority of a university to control the possession of deadly weapons on its campus, and therefore renders Mitchell’s termination unlawful as a violation of public policy.
“[T]he long-standing practice of this Court is to refrain from reaching constitutional issues when other, non-constitutional grounds can be relied upon.” Baker v. Fletcher, 204 S.W.3d 589, 597-98 (Ky.2006) (citing Dawson v. Birenbaum, 968 S.W.2d 663 (Ky.1998)). Therefore, to determine whether UK’s termination of Mitchell violated public policy, i.e., the right to bear arms, we begin by examining the relevant sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes.
A. Provided Mitchell Stored His Weapon in His Vehicle’s Glove Compartment, His Discharge Was Contrary to KRS 527.020(8)
Mitchell asserts a cause of action for termination in violation of public policy [899]*899under KRS 527.021X8).1 KRS 527.020 is a criminal statute, which prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon. KRS 527.020(1). The statute then proceeds to describe exceptions. KRS 527.020(8) applies generally to all persons:2
A firearm or other deadly weapon shall not be deemed concealed on or about the person if it is located in a glove compartment, regularly installed in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer, regardless of whether said compartment is locked, unlocked, or does not have a locking mechanism. No person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a person from keeping a firearm or ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in a glove compartment of a vehicle in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. Any attempt by a person or organization, public or private, to violate the provisions of this subsection may be the subject of an action for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit Court or District Court of competent jurisdiction.
(Emphasis added.)
“When the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous and express the legislative intent, there is no room for construction or interpretation and the statute must be given its effect as written.” McCracken County Fiscal Court v. Graves, 885 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Ky.1994) (quoting Lincoln County Fiscal Court v. Dep’t of Public Advocacy, 794 S.W.2d 162, 163 (Ky.1990)); see also Griffin v. City of Bowling Green, 458 S.W.2d 456, 457 (Ky.1970). The words of KRS 527.020(8) are clear and unambiguous. It forbids a public organization, such as a university, from prohibiting the possession of a firearm in the glove compartment of a vehicle. There can be no other reasonable interpretation of the statutory language.
Provided Mitchell stored his weapon in his vehicle’s glove compartment, UK violated KRS 527.020(8). The statute also provides Mitchell with a cause of action “for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit Court or District Court of competent jurisdiction.” Mitchell’s discharge was therefore contrary to KRS 527.020(8), provided his weapon was in fact stored in the glove compartment of his vehicle. Because there is also evidence in the record that Mitchell stored his weapon in his vehicle’s armrest,3 we now consider the applicability of KRS 527.020(4).
B. Because Mitchell Had a Valid Concealed Carry License, His Discharge Was Contrary to KRS 527.020(4)
KRS 237.110 authorizes the issuance of, and establishes standards for, concealed carry licenses. KRS 237.115 concerns the construction of KRS 237.110. It states, in relevant part,
Except as provided in KRS 527.020, nothing contained in KRS 237.110 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the right of a college, [900]*900university, or any postsecondary education facility, including technical schools and community colleges, to control the possession of deadly weapons on any property owned or controlled by them....
KRS 237.115(1) (emphasis added). Thus, universities, including UK, have an implicit right to control the possession of deadly weapons on property under their control. But this right is qualified by KRS 527.020.
KRS 527.020(8), discussed above, applies to persons regardless of whether they hold concealed carry licenses. KRS 527.020(4), by contrast, applies only to persons, like Mitchell, licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon:
Persons, except those specified in subsection (5) of this section, licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon pursuant to KRS 237.110 may carry a firearm or other concealed deadly weapon on or about their persons at all times within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, if the firearm or concealed deadly weapon is carried in conformity with the requirements of that section. Unless otherwise specifically provided by the Kentucky Revised Statutes or applicable federal law, no criminal penalty shall attach to carrying a concealed firearm or other deadly weapon with a permit at any location at which an unconcealed firearm or other deadly weapon may be constitutionally carried. No person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a person licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon from possessing a firearm, ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in his or her vehicle in compliance with the provisions of KRS 237.110 and 237.115. Any attempt by a person or organization, public or private, to violate the provisions of this subsection may be the subject of an action for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit Court or District Court of competent jurisdiction.
“Only if the statute is ambiguous ... or otherwise frustrates a plain reading, do we resort to the canons or rules of construction.... ” King Drugs, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Ky.2008) (citing Stephenson v. Woodward, 182 S.W.3d 162 (Ky.2005)). When the application of two statutes leads to an apparent conflict, this Court has a duty, to the extent possible, to harmonize the statutes and give force and effect to each. Spees v. Kentucky Legal Aid, 274 S.W.3d 447, 450 (Ky.2009); see also MPM Financial Group, Inc. v. Morton, 289 S.W.3d 193, 198 (Ky.2009). However, when statutory provisions are in conflict and cannot be harmonized, “our duty is to construe the statutes so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly.” Johnson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 313 S.W.3d 557, 559 (Ky.2010).
On its face, the emphasized portion of KRS 527.020(4) is not ambiguous. It forbids public and private organizations from imposing any prohibition on possession of a deadly weapon in a vehicle, provided that (1) the person so possessing is properly licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon, and (2) the person is in compliance with KRS 237.110 (which authorizes and regulates concealed carry licenses) and KRS 237.115 (which provides rules of construction for KRS 237.110).
However, when KRS 527.020(4) is read in conjunction with KRS 237.115(1) and applied to this case, a clear conflict arises. KRS 237.115(1) allows institutions of post-secondary education to control weapons on their property, “[e]xeept as provided in KRS 527.020....” However, KRS 527.020(4) refers to a person possessing a deadly weapon “in his or her vehicle in compliance with the provisions of KRS 237.110 and 237.115.” (emphasis added). [901]*901This creates circularity in the two statutes, with each referring back to the other as controlling.
To resolve this conflict, we look to the intent of the General Assembly. First, KRS 527.020(4), the provision relied upon by Mitchell, applies only to those licensed to carry concealed deadly weapons pursuant to KRS 237.110. KRS 237.115, the conflicting statute, provides guidance in the construction of KRS 237.110. However, KRS 237.110 itself provides a clear rule of construction, stating that “[t]his section shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense.” KRS 237.110(19). This clearly expresses the legislature’s intent and favors the right to bear arms of a concealed carry licensee.
In addition, the General Assembly has expressed a strong public policy in favor of exempting a person’s vehicle from restrictions on the possession of deadly weapons. For example, KRS 527.070, the statute that criminalizes possession of a weapon on primary and secondary school property,4 specifically exempts an adult who possesses a firearm contained in his or her vehicle, provided the firearm is not removed. KRS 527.070(3)(a). KRS 237.106(1) specifically forbids any person (including an employer) from prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm in his or her vehicle, provided the person is legally entitled to possess the firearm. See also KRS 237.110(17) (forbidding private employers from prohibiting an employee from keeping a weapon is his or her vehicle, provided the employee has a concealed carry license).
To the extent that KRS 527.020(4) and KRS 237.115(1) are in direct conflict, we hold that the conflict must be resolved in favor of KRS 527.020(4). We base this on the General Assembly’s explicit statement that the concealed carry licensing statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the right to bear arms, as well as the legislature’s clearly expressed policy of exempting a person’s vehicle from firearms regulation.
This interpretation best accomplishes the goal of giving effect to the words of both statutes. It also best harmonizes the two statutes by protecting the right of concealed carry licensees to store weapons anywhere in their vehicle, pursuant to KRS 527.020(4), while permitting universities to control5 the possession of deadly weapons on all other property, pursuant to KRS 237.115(1), subject only to the general limitations of KRS 527.020.6
[902]*902C. Despite Being Part of the Penal Code, KRS 527.020 Authorizes a Civil Cause of Action
As explained above, pursuant to KRS 527.020(4) and (8), UK improperly prohibited Mitchell from keeping a firearm in his glove compartment (pursuant to KRS 527.020(8)) or anywhere else in his vehicle (pursuant to KRS 527.020(4), because Mitchell had a concealed carry license). We are not persuaded by UK’s argument that, because KRS 527.020 is a criminal statute, it has no applicability to a civil suit for wrongful termination. While KRS 527.020 is primarily a criminal statute, which is codified in the penal code, KRS 527.020(4) and (8) also specifically contemplate and authorize a civil cause of action. “Any attempt by a person or organization, public or private, to violate the provisions of this subsection may be the subject of an action for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit Court or District Court of competent jurisdiction.” KRS 527.020(4) & (8) (emphasis added).
D. Because Mitchell Was Legally Entitled to Possess a Firearm in His Vehicle, His Discharge Was Contrary to KRS 237.106
Mitchell also asserts that his discharge was contrary to KRS 237.106. It provides, in relevant part:
(1) No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit any person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.
[[Image here]]
(4) An employer that fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising a right guaranteed by this section and who is engaging in conduct in compliance with this statute shall be liable in civil damages. An employee may seek and the court shall grant an injunction against an employer who is violating the provisions of this section when it is found that the employee is in compliance with the provisions of this section.
(5) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any real property:
[[Image here]]
(c) Where a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes specifically prohibits possession or carrying of firearms on the property.
UK argues that subsection (5)(c) relieves it of liability for terminating Mitchell, because KRS 237.115 is “a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes” that “specifically prohibits possession or carrying of firearms on the property.”
As explained above, KRS 237.115, while recognizing the implicit right of a university to control weapons on its campus, is limited by KRS 527.020. Because KRS 527.020(4) and (8) specifically permitted Mitchell to store a firearm in his vehicle, even while on University property, UK has failed to point to “a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes [that] specifically [903]*903prohibits possession or carrying of firearms on the property.” KRS 237.106(5)(c). Mitchell’s discharge was therefore contrary to KRS 287.106(4).
III. CONCLUSION
Mitchell has established that his discharge was contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy, i.e., the right to bear arms, as evidenced by existing statutory provisions, namely, KRS 237.106, KRS 237.110, and KRS 527.020. See Grzyb, 700 S.W.2d at 401. Further, Mitchell has established that an explicit legislative statement, KRS 237.106(4), prohibited his discharge, and that the reason for his discharge was his exercise of a right conferred by well-established legislative enactments in KRS 527.020(4) and (8), See Hill, 327 S.W.3d at 422. UK was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court is reversed. The case is hereby remanded to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CUNNINGHAM, NOBLE, and VENTERS, JJ., concur. SCOTT, J., concurs in result only without separate opinion. ABRAMSON, J., concurs in result only by separate opinion in which MINTON, C.J., joins.