(1) No employer shall fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate against any
individual with a disability with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms
and conditions of employment because of the person's physical disability unless the
disability restricts that individual's ability to engage in the particular job or
occupation for which he or she is eligible, or unless otherwise provided by law or,
on the basis of the results of a human immunodeficiency virus-related test, unless
the absence of human immunodeficiency virus infection is a bona fide occupational
qualification of the job in question; nor shall any employer limit, segregate, or
classify individuals with disabilities in any way which would deprive or tend to
deprive any individual with a disability of employment opportunities or otherwise
affect employee status because of physical disability, or on the basis of the results of
a human immunodeficiency virus-related test, unless the disability or absence of
human immunodeficiency virus infection, constitutes a bona fide and necessary
reason for the limitation, segregation or classification. This subsection shall not be
construed to require any employer to modify his physical facilities or grounds in any
way, or exercise a higher degree of caution for an individual with a disability than
for any person who is not an individual with a disability.
(2) No employment agency, placement service, training school or center, or labor
organization shall fail or refuse to refer for employment or otherwise discriminate
against individuals because of physical disability.
Effective: July 15, 1994
History: Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 405, sec. 65, effective July 15, 1994. -- Amended
1990 Ky. Acts ch. 443, sec. 52, effective July 13, 1990. -- Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch.
280, sec. 4.
Notes of Decisions
Hardaway Mgmt. Co. v. Southerland, 977 S.W.2d 910 (Ky. 1998).
· cites it 11× “197; and (3) wrongful termination in violation of the Kentucky Equal Opportunities Act (KEOA), KRS 207.150. [1] Hardaway was granted summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim on grounds of limitations, and on the retaliatory discharge claim on grounds of insufficiency of…”
Wymer v. JH Props., Inc., 50 S.W.3d 195 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 2× “102, the Whistleblower protection for public employees, and the Equal Opportunity Employees Act in KRS 207.150 which prohibits an employer from discharging an individual with *199 disabilities unless a disability restricts that individual's ability to engage in a particular job…”
Larison v. Home of the Innocents, 551 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “KRS 207.150(1), part of Kentucky's Equal Opportunities Act, also concerns employment practices as they relate to physical disabilities.”
Baum v. Metro Restoration Servs., Inc., 240 F. Supp. 3d 684 (W.D. Ky. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 207.150 (1). The KEOA defines “physical disability” as “the physical condition of a person whether congenital or acquired, which constitutes a substantial disability to that person and is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic…”
Day v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 675 F. Supp. 1508 (W.D. Ky. 1987).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiff claims that discharge of the employed-at-will plaintiff because of his handicap would, in this case, constitute a violation of a fundamental and well-defined public policy, both federal, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and state, under KRS 207.150. Lastly,…”
Whitlow v. Kentucky Mfg. Co., 762 S.W.2d 808 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “KRS 207.150 states, in pertinent part: (1) No employer shall fail or refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate against any handicapped individual with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment because of such person’s physical handicap…”
Marion Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 11× “This time, she argued her claims – which now included additional “retaliation claims” that she had never asserted in any complaint – were based upon KRS 207.150, KRS 207.170, KRS 336.700, and KRS 344.”
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Marion Hughes (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 11× “This time, she argued her claims – which now included additional “retaliation claims” that she had never asserted in any complaint – were based upon KRS 207.150, KRS 207.170, KRS 336.700, and KRS 344.”
Williams v. Kraft Foodservice, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 1201 (W.D. Ky. 1993).
· cites it 7× “For the-reasons discussed below, the Court will sustain Plaintiffs motion; amend its order of dismissal; and reinstate Plaintiffs claim of handicap discrimination arising under KRS 207.150. I. Between April 27, 1990, and November 2, 1990, Plaintiff underwent two orthoseopie…”
Marshall Young v. Haier U.S. Appliance Solutions, Inc., D/B/A Ge Appliances (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“Specifically, Young claimed: (1) GEA had engaged in disability discrimination when it failed to hire him and failed to reasonably accommodate him as a qualified individual with a disability; (2) discriminated against him by failing to hire him due to his disability, in violation…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 207.150(1) — 6 cases
Larison v. Home of the Innocents, 551 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
“KRS 207.150(1), part of Kentucky's Equal Opportunities Act, also concerns employment practices as they relate to physical disabilities.”
Hardaway Mgmt. Co. v. Southerland, 977 S.W.2d 910 (Ky. 1998).
“197; and (3) wrongful termination in violation of the Kentucky Equal Opportunities Act (KEOA), KRS 207.150. [1] Hardaway was granted summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim on grounds of limitations, and on the retaliatory discharge claim on grounds of insufficiency of…”
Whitlow v. Kentucky Mfg. Co., 762 S.W.2d 808 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).
“KRS 207.150 states, in pertinent part: (1) No employer shall fail or refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate against any handicapped individual with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment because of such person’s physical handicap…”
Marion Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“This time, she argued her claims – which now included additional “retaliation claims” that she had never asserted in any complaint – were based upon KRS 207.150, KRS 207.170, KRS 336.700, and KRS 344.”
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Marion Hughes (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“This time, she argued her claims – which now included additional “retaliation claims” that she had never asserted in any complaint – were based upon KRS 207.150, KRS 207.170, KRS 336.700, and KRS 344.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.