The Kentucky Civil Rights Act is very ambitious and aims to cure or deter many wrongs and wrongful practices. The General Assembly stated some of its goals and aims as follows:
to safeguard all individuals with in the state from discrimination … Thereby to protect their interest and personal dignity and freedom from humiliation, to make available to the state therefore productive capacities, to secure the state against domestic strife and unrest which would menace its democratic institutions, to preserve the public safety, health, and general welfare, and to further the interests, rights and privileges of individuals with in the state
Nevertheless, some of the esteemed district judges in the west have determined that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, a statutory construction tool invented to make sense of the Sherman Antitrust Act, should be applied to trim the reach of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. But no Kentucky appellate court has ever considered or applied the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in any case in any context.
I argue it should not be applied to an aiding and abetting an unlawful employment practice claim under KRS 344.280(2) in a Court of Appeals brief in Cowing v Commere.
25 other states and the District of Columbia have civil rights laws similar to Kentucky providing causes of action for aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination.