Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 344
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.280 (2026)

Conspiracy to violate chapter unlawful

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be an unlawful practice for a person, or for two (2) or more persons to conspire: (1) To retaliate or discriminate in any manner against a person because he has opposed a practice declared unlawful by this chapter, or because he has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter; or (2) To aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in any of the acts or practices declared unlawful by this chapter; or (3) To obstruct or prevent a person from complying with the provisions of this chapter or any order issued thereunder; (4) To resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with the commission, or any of its members or representatives, in the lawful performance of duty under this chapter; or (5) To coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by KRS 344.360, 344.367, 344.370, 344.380, or 344.680. Effective: July 14, 1992 History: Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 282, sec. 34, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 2, Art. 6, sec. 601.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 146 cases (94 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 56× “The basis of this argument is that KRS 344.280 states in pertinent part that "[I]t shall be an unlawful practice for a person, or for two (2) or more persons to.”
Bank One, Kentucky, N.A. v. Murphy, 52 S.W.3d 540 (Ky. 2001). · cites it 38× “The trial court also denied Murphy's motion to amend her complaint to allege that the bank and its attorneys had engaged in retaliatory conduct in violation of KRS 344.280 by filing the federal declaratory judgment action.”
Asbury Univ. v. Powell, 486 S.W.3d 246 (Ky. 2016). · cites it 15× “In petitioning this Court for discretionary review, Asbury raised numerous claims of error, and we accepted review-primarily to decide whether retaliation claims brought under KRS 344.280(1) must be predicated upon an underlying violation .”
Charalambakis v. Asbury Univ., 488 S.W.3d 568 (Ky. 2016). · cites it 16× “040 wrongful discrimination claim and his KRS 344.280 wrongful retaliation claim brought against his employer, Appellee Asbury University (Asbury).”
Cabinet for Families & Child. v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2005). · cites it 10× “Morris , which rejected reference to Title VII, was concerned with Kentucky's Civil Rights Act, which expressly provides that "a person, or ... two (2) or more persons" are liable for a violation of this Act, and defines a person to include, inter alia, an individual, a…”
Palmer v. Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, 882 S.W.2d 117 (Ky. 1994). · cites it 10× “The final question is whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it held that Palmer did not have a cause of action against two individuals who, in alleged violation of KRS 344.280, conspired to retaliate or discriminate in any manner against a person who had…”
Hill v. Kentucky Lottery Corp., 327 S.W.3d 412 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 5× “Several months later, the Hills filed a lawsuit against KLC in the Jefferson Circuit Court, asserting three claims: 1) unlawful retaliation in violation of KRS 344.280, Kentucky's Civil Rights Act; 2) common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and 3) defamation.”
Mammoth Med., Inc. v. Bunnell, 265 S.W.3d 205 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 8× “The employee contended that filing a suit while settlement negotiations were ongoing amounted to a violation of KRS 344.280 and was retaliatory in nature.”
Marla Montell v. Diversified Clinical Servs., 757 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “Retaliation Montell’s main claim is that she was constructively discharged by DCS in retaliation for complaining about Day’s sexual harassment in violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”), Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.280. Under the KCRA, it is unlawful “[t]o retaliate or…”
Cowing v. Commare, 499 S.W.3d 291 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “The provisions of KRS 344.280 declare it unlawful to conspire to violate the provisions of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.”
Scott Krueger v. Home Depot USA, 674 F. App'x 490 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.280 (1). On appeal, Krueger argues that the district court used the wrong standard of review when evaluating Home Depot’s motion to dismiss, and that he has met the plausibility pleading standard as to each of his claims.”
Ivey v. McCreary Cnty. Fiscal Court, 939 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Ky. 2013). · cites it 7× “The Sixth Circuit held: Though this statement from Wathen is generally true, it clearly does not apply to retaliation claims brought under Ky. Rev.Stat. § 344.280. This section does not “mirror” 42 U.”
Show all 146 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.280(1) — 61 cases
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). “The basis of this argument is that KRS 344.280 states in pertinent part that "[I]t shall be an unlawful practice for a person, or for two (2) or more persons to.”
Asbury Univ. v. Powell, 486 S.W.3d 246 (Ky. 2016). “In petitioning this Court for discretionary review, Asbury raised numerous claims of error, and we accepted review-primarily to decide whether retaliation claims brought under KRS 344.280(1) must be predicated upon an underlying violation .”
Bank One, Kentucky, N.A. v. Murphy, 52 S.W.3d 540 (Ky. 2001). “The trial court also denied Murphy's motion to amend her complaint to allege that the bank and its attorneys had engaged in retaliatory conduct in violation of KRS 344.280 by filing the federal declaratory judgment action.”
Charalambakis v. Asbury Univ., 488 S.W.3d 568 (Ky. 2016). “040 wrongful discrimination claim and his KRS 344.280 wrongful retaliation claim brought against his employer, Appellee Asbury University (Asbury).”
Kentucky Dep't of Corr. v. McCullough, 123 S.W.3d 130 (Ky. 2004).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.280(2) — 3 cases
Godsey v. Miller, 9 F. App'x 380 (6th Cir. 2001).
Tambo v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC (W.D. Ky. 2024).
Rainey (D. Colo. 2025).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.280(5) — 1 case
Christopher Stark v. Joshua Collins (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.280(A) — 1 case
Redmond v. Bell Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (E.D. Ky. 2025).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.280(l) — 2 cases
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). “The basis of this argument is that KRS 344.280 states in pertinent part that "[I]t shall be an unlawful practice for a person, or for two (2) or more persons to.”
Bank One, Kentucky, N.A. v. Murphy, 52 S.W.3d 540 (Ky. 2001). “The trial court also denied Murphy's motion to amend her complaint to allege that the bank and its attorneys had engaged in retaliatory conduct in violation of KRS 344.280 by filing the federal declaratory judgment action.”
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.