Employer liable for denying right -- Exceptions.
(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.
(2) A person, including but not limited to an employer, who owns, leases, or otherwise
occupies real property may prevent a person who is prohibited by state or federal
law from possessing a firearm or ammunition from possessing a firearm or
ammunition on the property.
(3) A firearm may be removed from the vehicle or handled in the case of self-defense,
defense of another, defense of property, or as authorized by the owner, lessee, or
occupant of the property.
(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:
(a) Owned, leased, or occupied by the United States government, upon which the
possession or carrying of firearms is prohibited or controlled;
(b) Of a detention facility as defined in KRS 520.010; or
(c) Where a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes specifically prohibits
possession or carrying of firearms on the property.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 240, sec. 8, effective July 12, 2006.
Notes of Decisions
Mitchell v. Univ. of Kentucky, 366 S.W.3d 895 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 19× “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.”
Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 3d 465 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
· cites it 26× “See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 237.106, 527.020. In addition, Kentucky common law recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when an employee’s termination “is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy” that is “evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision.”
Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 2d 537 (W.D. Ky. 2014).
· cites it 4× “020; (2) alleged violations of KRS § 237.106; and, (3) a common law claim under the so-called public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, which alleges that Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in violation of the public policy set forth in KRS 237.”
Sheard v. Novo Nordisk Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2022).
· cites it 16× “The law is geographically limited to cases in which someone prohibits a person from “possessing a firearm … in a vehicle on the property” of the employer. KRS § 237.106 (emphasis added).”
Deryck Huelett v. Louisville Paving Co., Inc. (6th Cir. 2025).
“, PageID 737 (quoting Ky. Rev. Stat. § 237.106). Even so, Huelett argues that this wasn’t the real reason he was fired; he says he was instead terminated because of Louisville Paving’s perception that he had mental health issues amounting to a disability.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 237.106(1) — 3 cases
Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 3d 465 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 237.106, 527.020. In addition, Kentucky common law recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when an employee’s termination “is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy” that is “evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision.”
Mitchell v. Univ. of Kentucky, 366 S.W.3d 895 (Ky. 2012).
“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.”
Sheard v. Novo Nordisk Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2022).
“The law is geographically limited to cases in which someone prohibits a person from “possessing a firearm … in a vehicle on the property” of the employer. KRS § 237.106 (emphasis added).”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 237.106(3) — 2 cases
Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 3d 465 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 237.106, 527.020. In addition, Kentucky common law recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when an employee’s termination “is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy” that is “evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 237.106(4) — 2 cases
Mitchell v. Univ. of Kentucky, 366 S.W.3d 895 (Ky. 2012).
“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.”
Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 3d 465 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 237.106, 527.020. In addition, Kentucky common law recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when an employee’s termination “is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy” that is “evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 237.106(5)(c) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Univ. of Kentucky, 366 S.W.3d 895 (Ky. 2012).
“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.”
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.