Zachary joined Richardson Law Group, PLLC as a litigation attorney in 2019.
Associate, Richardson Law Group, PLLC, Lexington, KY August 2019 to present
University of Kentucky College of Law, Juris Doctor (2019)
Georgetown College, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Minor in Communications, Magna Cum Laude (2016)
Accomplishments, Honors, Affiliations
University of Kentucky College of Law Moot Court National Team
Georgetown College Department of Political Science outstanding senior award
Kentucky Bar Association
Lexington Bar Association
Commonwealth of Kentucky
December 2023, Mercer Circuit Court, KY: Kays v. Strategic Holdings. Zack Turpin obtained Summary Judgment obtained in favor of property management company in a premises liability action where the Plaintiff sued for personal injuries after his foot went through a soft spot in the floor. The Court held the property management company had no liability to the Plaintiff because the injury occurred within the leased premises where the tenant had exclusive control and because the Plaintiff was aware of the alleged defect prior to the incident. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the Judgment and the Kentucky Supreme Court denied Discretionary Review.
2023 September, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky: Rebecca Thorpe v. Board of Education of Powell County, Kentucky, et al. Melissa Richardson, Elizabeth Bass, and Zack Turpin obtained summary judgment for their clients, a Board of Education, a Superintendent, and a High School Principal, after a former employee filed a Complaint alleging wrongful termination in violation of the First Amendment, her right to Due Process, and the Kentucky Constitution. While the Plaintiff alleged she was terminated for attending a political rally, Defendants maintained she was terminated due to repeated unexcused absences and multiple instances of insubordination. In granting summary judgment for the Defendants, the Court reasoned that because Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of a causal link between her attendance at the political rally and her termination, she could not maintain her First Amendment claim. The Court also reasoned that because Plaintiff was a non-tenured employee employed pursuant to a one-year contract, she had no continued property interest in her employment, and could not maintain a Due Process claim. Finally, the Court held that because Kentucky does not recognize the right to recover money damages for a violation of the state’s Constitution, and because Plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or plead reinstatement as a form of relief, her claims alleging violations of the Kentucky Constitution also failed as a matter of law.
September 2023, Fayette County, KY: Emily Rardin v. Roadhouse Management. Zack Turpin successfully obtained summary judgment for his client, a local restaurant, regarding a Plaintiff’s dram-shop claims. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint following a hit-and-run automobile accident and alleged the individual responsible for causing the accident had been overserved prior to the accident at a local restaurant. As evidence for Plaintiff’s allegation, she cited a witness who allegedly saw the individual in the restaurant’s parking lot minutes before the accident. The Court ultimately dismissed the claims against the restaurant and reasoned that while the individual was captured on security footage in the restaurant’s parking lot prior to the accident, there was no evidence the individual entered the restaurant at any time prior to the accident.
December 2021, Pike County, KY: Darnell, v. United Steel Workers of America, et al. Joshua Leckrone and Zack Turpin successfully obtained summary judgment in a slip and fall action for their clients, a labor union and its president. The Plaintiff claimed to have fallen as a result of condensation that had accumulated on the floor due to an allegedly defective air conditioning unit while she was visiting a tenant of an apartment complex. Plaintiff filed suit against several individuals and entities, including the labor union and its president, and alleged that each defendant owned, operated, or had control of the subject premises where Plaintiff allegedly fell. Plaintiff also claimed the president of the labor union had decision making control over the day-to-day operations at the apartment complex based on personal dealings. The president of the labor union also served as the Registered Agent of the entity who in fact owned the apartment complex. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the labor union and its president because it determined that neither she, nor the labor union, owned or exhibited sufficient control over the day to day decision making at the complex to potentially be liable.
February 2020, Kenton County, KY: Kentucky Commission on Human Rights v. Scott’s Property Management. Melissa Richardson and Zack Turpin successfully obtained a dismissal for their client, a property management service. Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Human Right’s Commission on July 11, 2016, based on allegedly discriminatory housing practices that led to her wrongful eviction. KRS 344.625 requires the Commission to make a probable cause determination within one hundred days of the filing of a Complaint, “unless it is impracticable to make such a determination within that time frame.” The Commission reviewed the Complaint but did not determine that probable cause of a discriminatory housing practiced existed until more than three years after the Plaintiff made her grievance. Further, the Commission offered no explanation for the delay. The Commission filed suit on Plaintiff’s behalf in Kenton Circuit Court on May 21, 2019.
KRS Chapter 344, which governs civil rights actions, modifies the traditional one year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims, to two years from the date of “the occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice.” Not included within this two years was the time the Plaintiff’s Complaint was pending a probable cause determination with the Commission. However, KRS 344.625 required the Commission make a probable cause determination within one hundred days of filing the Complaint, unless impracticable. Therefore, Defendant successfully argued that the Commission only had two years and one hundred days to file suit beginning on the date the discrimination terminated, since the Commission offered no proof that returning a probable cause determination within one hundred days was impracticable. Additionally, the Defendant successfully argued the Commission was not an “aggrieved person” under KRS 344.650, and therefore, any suit filed by the Commission on the Plaintiff’s behalf would be subject to the one year statute of limitations applicable to traditional tort claims.
In his spare time, Zack enjoys cooking, spending time with friends and family, and supporting University of Kentucky athletics