the ambit of the KCRA. We reverse the Shelby Circuit Court’s order dismissing this action and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ALL CONCUR. 2 . KRS 344.030(2) defines an employer, in relevant part, as "a person who has eight (8) or more employees within the state in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year[.]” It is uncontested that the City is, for purposes of the KCRA, a person as the term "person” is defined to include "the state, any of its political or civil subdivisions or agencies.” KRS 344.010(1). 3 . Cabinet for Families and Children v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Ky.2005). 4 . Id. 5 . KRS 344.030(5). 6 . Howard Baer, Inc. v. Schave, 127 S.W.3d 589, 592 (Ky.2003). See also KRS 344.020(l)(a) (<HOLDING>). 7 . See 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(2)(C)(ii)(I). 8 .
holding that a violation of federal regulations cannot support a wrongful discharge claim under kentucky law holding that a denial of qualified immunity on the law is collateral to the merits of the underlying action and is therefore considered final for appellate purposes holding that a public corporation in that case a commission created to provide information about the tva is an entity separate from the state and its acts are not acts of the state  within the meaning of the state constitutions prohibition against the state creating new debts holding that it is a violation of the fourth amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant holding that one of the purposes underlying the kcra is to provide for execution within kentucky of the policies embodied in the various federal civil rights acts