"Under Kentucky law, the scope of a release is determined by the intent of the parties, as evidenced by the language of the entire instrument and the surrounding facts and circumstances." Gardinella v. Gen. Elec. Co., 833 F. Supp. 617, 619 (W.D. Ky. 1993); Overberg v. Lusby, 727 F. Supp. 1091, 1093 (E.D. Ky.) aff'd, 921 F.2d 90 (6th Cir. 1990). "Where a contract is ambiguous or silent on a vital matter, a court may consider parol and extrinsic evidence involving the circumstances surrounding execution of the contract, the subject matter of the contract, the objects to be accomplished, and the conduct of the parties."
" Id. The Kentucky Supreme Court has expressly rejected Swift's argument and held that "the workers' compensation statute preempts only common law tort claims and does not preempt a statutory civil rights claim." Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., 840 S.W.2d 814, 819 (Ky. 1992) ("This Court must presume that the General Assembly knew of the Workers' Compensation Law preemption doctrine when it created a private cause of action for 'actual damages' caused by discrimination in the Kentucky Civil Rights Act"); see also Gardinella v. General Elec. Co., 833 F. Supp. 617, 619 (W.D. Ky. 1993) ("K.R.S. ยง 342.690 does not preclude claims for damages brought pursuant to the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, which provides a specific and independent cause of action to remedy employment discrimination"). Accordingly, Stepp's wrongful termination and discrimination claims are not barred by the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act.
One federal court has employed similar reasoning in not applying the election of remedies doctrine. In Gardinella v. General Elec. Co., 833 F. Supp. 617, 619 (W.D.Ky. 1993), the court specifically stated that the election of remedies doctrine did not apply to the plaintiffs state employment discrimination claim where he received compensation only for injuries to his thumb and wrist under the Kentucky workers' compensation act and damages for those injuries were not sought in the employment discrimination action. While there is no Maryland case directly on point, the Court is persuaded by the authority from the other jurisdictions discussed above, particularly the reasoning of Moniz v. Reitano Enterprises, Inc., 709 So.2d 150 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998).
" The court held that the settlement only prevented claims brought under the Workers Compensation Act. 833 F. Supp. 617 (W.D. Ky. 1993). Id. at 619.