Kansas — Workplace Discrimination

The Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, and ancestry. The Act does not currently prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. "Employer" includes any person in Kansas employing four or more persons, as well as labor organizations, nonsectarian corporations, organizations engaged in social service work, and the state and all political subdivisions. Nonprofit fraternal or social associations and sectarian corporations are excluded. The Kansas Human Rights Commission enforces the KAAD.

Source: K.S.A. 44-1001 and K.S.A. 44-1002(b)

Complaints under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination must be filed with the Kansas Human Rights Commission within six months after the alleged act of discrimination. If the complaint alleges a continuing pattern or practice of discrimination, the six-month period runs from the last act of discrimination. This deadline is jurisdictional — the Commission cannot process complaints filed outside the six-month window.

Source: K.S.A. 44-1005(i)

Kansas treats pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD). K.A.R. 21-32-6, the implementing regulation, establishes mandatory protections beyond the basic prohibition on pregnancy-based employment exclusion.

Pregnancy as temporary disability

Under K.A.R. 21-32-6(b), disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, childbirth, and recovery are temporary disabilities "for all job related purposes." Covered employers must treat these pregnancy-related conditions identically to other temporary disabilities under any health insurance, temporary disability insurance, sick leave plan (formal or informal), or other employee benefit program. If an employer provides paid sick leave, short-term disability benefits, or modified duty for employees with broken bones, back injuries, or other temporary medical conditions, the same terms must apply to pregnancy-related disabilities.

Mandatory reasonable leave

K.A.R. 21-32-6(d) requires employers to consider childbearing "a justification for a leave of absence for female employees for a reasonable period of time." This is an independent obligation — even if an employer provides no disability leave program at all, the regulation mandates a reasonable pregnancy leave. The regulation does not define "reasonable," but the employment policies and practices governing leave must address "the commencement and duration of leave, the availability of extensions, the accrual of seniority and other benefits and privileges, reinstatement, and payment" on the same terms as other temporary disabilities under K.A.R. 21-32-6(b).

Exclusion and termination as prima facie discrimination

K.A.R. 21-32-6(a) provides that any written or unwritten employment policy or practice that excludes applicants or employees because of pregnancy is prima facie discrimination. Termination of a pregnant employee caused by insufficient or no available leave is discriminatory under K.A.R. 21-32-6(c) if it has a disparate impact on employees of one sex and is not justified by business necessity.

Scope

These requirements apply to employers with four or more employees, the same coverage threshold as the KAAD generally. K.S.A. 44-1002(b) defines "employer" to include any person in Kansas employing four or more persons, as well as labor organizations, nonsectarian corporations, organizations engaged in social service work, and the state and all political subdivisions. The KAAD does not preempt federal protections under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (Title VII, 15+ employees) or the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (15+ employees); Kansas employers subject to both sets of rules must comply with whichever standard is more protective in a given situation.

Source: K.A.R. 21-32-6 Source: K.S.A. 44-1002(b)

The Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD), at K.S.A. 44-1009(a), sets out a list of specific employment practices that are unlawful when taken because of an individual's race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry.

Prohibited practices include:

• Hiring, Discharge, and Compensation: Employers are prohibited from refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against any person with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a protected class. (K.S.A. 44-1009(a)(1))
• Limiting, Segregating, or Classifying: Employers may not limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants in ways that could deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely affect their employment status due to a protected characteristic. (K.S.A. 44-1009(a)(2))
• Employment Agencies: Employment agencies cannot refuse service or discriminate based on a protected class. (K.S.A. 44-1009(a)(3))
• Labor Organizations: Labor organizations may not exclude, expel, or otherwise discriminate against individuals in membership decisions or other aspects of participation on a prohibited basis. (K.S.A. 44-1009(a)(4))
• Retaliation: It is also unlawful to retaliate against individuals for opposing practices forbidden by the Act or for participating in proceedings under the Act. (K.S.A. 44-1009(a)(5))

Note on harassment: The KAAD statute does not use the term "harassment." However, unwelcome conduct that affects the terms and conditions of employment related to a protected class may be actionable if it rises to the level of discrimination with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment as stated in K.S.A. 44-1009(a)(1). The statute itself does not separately define or prohibit "harassment."

For the coverage threshold for employers (generally four or more employees), see K.S.A. 44-1002(b), addressed in the "KAAD coverage and protected classes" section of this guide.

Source: K.S.A. 44-1009(a)

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is required before a complainant may file a civil action in court under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD). The KAAD provides a specific administrative process that must be completed through the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

KHRC exclusive front-end jurisdiction

K.S.A. 44-1005(i) states that, once a complaint is filed, the KHRC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and resolve the claim. The complainant may not bypass this process by filing directly in court. The administrative procedure includes: (1) filing a complaint with the KHRC within six months of the alleged discriminatory act; (2) an investigation and determination by the Commission as to whether probable cause exists to believe discrimination occurred; and (3) if probable cause is found, efforts at conciliation, followed by a public hearing if conciliation fails. (K.S.A. 44-1005, 44-1006, 44-1009)

Right-to-sue process

Current Kansas law does not provide for a "right-to-sue" letter analogous to federal Title VII practice. Instead, the Commission's determination generally controls the next procedural steps. If the Commission finds no probable cause, the complaint is dismissed and, absent a successful rehearing or appeal, the matter terminates (K.S.A. 44-1010). If probable cause is found, a hearing before a KHRC hearing examiner may be held.

Private civil action

The KAAD does not expressly provide a statutory right for individuals to file a discrimination lawsuit in Kansas state court independent of completing the KHRC process. Civil action in district court is typically available only (1) to seek judicial review of a final order by the KHRC after the administrative process concludes, or (2) to enforce or appeal the Commission's order. Thus, exhaustion of the KHRC process is required before court review or enforcement can be sought (K.S.A. 44-1011, 44-1012, 44-1013).

Key Authority

• K.S.A. 44-1005 through 44-1013 (administrative process, judicial review, enforcement)
• KHRC v. City of Topeka, 245 Kan. 534, 781 P.2d 666 (1989) (confirming KHRC's exclusive jurisdiction at the front end)

Source: K.S.A. 44-1005 Source: K.S.A. 44-1011 Source: KHRC v. City of Topeka, 245 Kan. 534, 781 P.2d 666 (1989)

Kansas Act Against Discrimination — remedies available via KHRC administrative orders Under K.S.A. 44‑1005(k), if the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) finds an employment violation, the presiding officer must issue an order that:

• Requires the respondent to hire, reinstate, or upgrade the employee (affirmative action).
• May include back pay, and can order reinstatement “with or without back pay.”
• May award damages for “pain, suffering and humiliation” incidental to the discrimination, up to a cap of $2,000.

This is mandatory—KHRC must issue actions it deems necessary to “effectuate the purposes of the Act.” Source: K.S.A. 44‑1005(k)

---

Kansas Act Against Discrimination — remedies available in court actions Under K.S.A. 44‑1127, individuals may bypass or follow up the administrative process with a civil action in district court. If the court finds a violation, it may:

• Award actual damages, or a minimum of $500 per violation, whichever is greater.
• Grant injunctive relief—temporary or permanent—including orders to cease unlawful conduct or take affirmative action.
• Award the prevailing party court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

This applies per violation, and injunctive relief can include reinstatement or policy changes. Source: K.S.A. 44‑1127

---

Summary of remedies under KAAD

• KHRC orders: reinstatement/hiring/upgrading, back pay, plus emotional-damage award capped at $2,000.
• Court actions: actual damages (or $500), injunctions/affirmative relief, attorney’s fees, costs.

There is no statutory mention of front pay, compensatory damages beyond $2,000 in administrative proceedings, or punitive damages under KAAD. Source: (silence in K.S.A. 44‑1005(k), 44‑1127)

Under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD), employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, unless doing so creates an undue hardship. Kansas law closely mirrors the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on this point—there is no stricter state-specific procedure.

Reasonable Accommodation (KAAD definition) KAAD, at K.S.A. 44‑1002(k), defines “reasonable accommodation” as:

• making existing facilities accessible,
• restructuring jobs,
• part-time or modified schedules,
• reassigning to a vacant position,
• modifying equipment or devices,
• adjusting exams, training materials, or policies,
• providing qualified readers or interpreters, and similar steps.

KAAD expressly excludes individuals “regarded as having” a disability under K.S.A. 44‑1002(j)(3) from entitlement to accommodations. Source: K.S.A. 44‑1002(k) and (j)(3)

Undue Hardship Standard KAAD includes an undue hardship defense: an employer need not accommodate if the modification imposes undue hardship on business operation. Kansas regulations define undue hardship as imposing significant difficulty or expense, and enumerate factors—including cost, financial resources, business size, structure, and operational impact—to guide the analysis. Unable to confirm as of 2026-06-16.

Direct Threat Exception KAAD itself does not define “direct threat,” but the Kansas Human Rights Commission’s regulations adopt the ADA’s language: a direct threat is a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. Kansas regulations similarly require evaluating duration, severity, probability, and imminence, matching 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Unable to confirm as of 2026-06-16.

Interactive Process KAAD statute and regulations do not articulate a formal “interactive process” requirement (i.e. statutorily mandated employer–employee dialogue). However, because KAAD’s reasonable accommodation framework and defenses align with the ADA’s, Kansas employers should follow the ADA’s interactive process model in practice—even though not codified at the state level.

---

Summary of Comparison with ADA

• Definition of reasonable accommodation — Same scope of accommodations; state rule tracks ADA.
• “Undue hardship” — Same standard and factors under Kansas regs.
• “Direct threat” defense — Incorporated via state regulation, using ADA language and criteria.
• Interactive process — Not expressly required in KAAD, but implicitly adopted by alignment.

Though KAAD does not expand or restrict beyond ADA, employers should assume ADA-like practice applies.

Source: K.S.A. 44‑1002