One of two women placed on administrative leave from Murray State University in August filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the university this week, alleging she was retaliated against after repeatedly raising concerns about whether university purchases and contracts complied with state procurement laws.
The suit, filed in Calloway Circuit Court Monday, also alleges sex discrimination, arguing her treatment was part of a broader pattern involving women in senior and administrative roles during President Ron Patterson’s tenure.
Paducah-based attorney Wes Sullenger filed the suit on behalf of Darcie Liddle, the procurement services director who remains on paid administrative leave until June 30, 2027.
Liddle was named interim director in November 2025 after her predecessor, Beth Ward, retired and was promoted to the permanent director position in May. In that role, she handled purchase orders, bids, capital projects and personal service contracts, all of which required compliance with state procurement laws.
According to the complaint, one of the first “significant matters” arose not long after Liddle was appointed interim director and involved the Learfield multimedia rights contract.
The filing notes that, prior to her retirement, Ward would not approve the Learfield contract as a sole-source procurement because she believed Kentucky law required the transaction to be competitively bid. As interim director, Liddle reached the same conclusion when the subject resurfaced.
Patterson signed the contract after designating Learfield as a sole source vendor without approval from procurement. After the transaction was complete, Liddle emailed Ward “to document what had occurred and to seek guidance regarding how she should handle the completed transaction.”
The complaint also alleges that, in December 2025, Patterson and Liddle discussed a paid consultant Patterson wanted to bring on campus. Liddle advised a personal service contract would have to be completed before the consultant began any work.
“When Defendant nevertheless allowed the consultant to perform work without the required Personal Service Contract,” the filing states, “Ms. Liddle advised that state funds could not be used to pay for the work, and Defendant ultimately used Foundation funds to make payment.”
Around that time, General Counsel Rob Miller advised against signing other contracts because of legal concerns, including indemnification provisions, according to the complaint, but “Patterson directed that certain transactions proceed notwithstanding those concerns.”
In March, then-Vice President of Finance and Administrative Services Laura Foltz told Liddle she intended to promote her to the director position permanently. However, the complaint alleges Patterson opposed the internal promotion and required a formal search to fill the position.
According to the complaint, Foltz told Liddle that Patterson was reluctant to promote her “because they had ‘butted heads’ on multiple occasions over whether requested purchases and transactions were legally permissible.”
Nonetheless, Liddle applied and, despite Patterson’s concerns, was ultimately awarded the permanent position in May.
Sullenger cited an open records request submitted to the university by The Sentinel also in May. He called attention to a specific email flagged as responsive to the request – the email Liddle sent Ward in November 2025.
“Soon afterward, Dr. Foltz informed Ms. Liddle that President Patterson was furious about the email and believed Ms. Liddle was responsible for the scrutiny concerning the Learfield transaction,” Sullenger wrote. “Ms. Liddle reasonably understood from those communications that President Patterson viewed her insistence on procurement compliance and her documentation of the Learfield transaction as disloyal and that her employment was in jeopardy.”
Over the summer, according to the complaint, Liddle spoke out again, this time with concerns related to the feasibility study for the proposed Racer Entertainment Village. She told Foltz and Miller, whom the complaint identifies as “persons who had authority to address, report, or advise concerning procurement compliance and suspected misconduct,” that she questioned whether the bid process and scoring were conducted fairly and complied with procurement requirements.
“Ms. Liddle made her reports and disclosures in good faith as part of her responsibility to protect public funds and to ensure that Defendant complied with Kentucky procurement law,” Sullenger argued.
The complaint then turns to the personnel changes that unfolded in early August. On Aug. 5, Patterson placed Foltz, Liddle’s direct supervisor, on leave. The following day, Associate Director of Human Resources Haley Stedelin resigned after Patterson asked her to sign a letter “he had written on her behalf” and carry out a leave-of-absence process she believed was inconsistent with past human resources precedent.
On Aug. 7, Miller notified Liddle that she would be placed on paid administrative leave effective Aug. 14. According to the complaint, she had received no prior disciplinary action. The complaint further alleges the university gave Liddle no explanation for the decision.
Under the terms of the leave, Liddle would continue receiving her salary and benefits, but she lost access to university systems and was not expected to perform any work. She was also informed her contract would not be renewed unless a future supervisor decided otherwise.
“The practical effect of Defendant’s action was to remove Ms. Liddle from the workplace, strip her of all duties, deprive her of the opportunities and benefits of being in the workplace, and prospectively terminate her employment when her contract expires on June 30, 2027,” Sullenger wrote.
He argued the timing, combined with Patterson’s previous disagreements with Liddle over procurement issues and his reaction to the Learfield email, connected the change in her employment status to her efforts to raise concerns about university spending and contracting practices.
The complaint separately alleges sex discrimination in violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
“Ms. Liddle is a woman, and she is only one of multiple women in senior or administrative roles who have been removed, placed on leave, pressured to leave, or have left under circumstances materially different from the treatment afforded to male administrators,” Sullenger argued.
By way of example, the complaint alleges Patterson participated in a Zoom meeting before officially taking office that included only male directors, excluding all female directors, including a female vice president whose male subordinates were invited.
“Upon information and belief,” Sullenger wrote, “male directors and administrators who disagreed with or pushed back against President Patterson have not been subjected to the same combination of immediate removal of duties, exclusion from the workplace, and prospective nonrenewal imposed on Ms. Liddle.”
Liddle is asking the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, lost benefits and retirement-related losses. She is also seeking reinstatement to an appropriate position or front pay if reinstatement is not feasible, punitive damages on the whistleblower claim and compensatory damages on the sex-discrimination claim, as well as attorney and witness fees and interest.
Filings in civil suits only represent one party’s interpretation of events.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here