Lobbying Affiliate: MML&K Government Solutions
{ Banner Image }

Employment Law Blog

When It Comes To Employment Issues, Choose A Firm That Thinks Outside the Cubicle.

Contact Us

250 Character(s) Remaining
Type the following characters: tango, romeo, november, six

* Indicates a required field.

Stay Connected

RSSSubscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Facebook

Archives

Categories

McBrayer Blogs

Showing 69 posts from 2014.

HIPAA Considerations In The Event Of Employee Death or Incapacitation

December 5, 2014
Posted In Department of Health and Human Services, Employee Benefits, Employee Contracts, Employee Forms, Employee Handbook, Employee Personnel Files, Employer Group Health Plans, Employer Mandate, HIPAA, Human Resource Department

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, otherwise known as HIPAA, acts in part to provide federal protection for identifiable health information retained by covered entities, which includes most businesses that offer company health plans. While many employers have policies and procedures in place to ensure HIPAA compliance in routine, every day matters relating to the management of employee health data, few employers have developed policies or even considered how to manage protected health information in the unfortunate event of employee death or incapacitation. More >

blogs-Employment-Law-Blog,updated-enhanced-eeoc-enforcement-guidance-what-does-it-mean-for-employers-and-pregnant-employees

November 25, 2014
Posted In EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Human Resource Department, Maternity Leave, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Young v. UPS

In our previous blog post, we discussed and detailed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the stringent Enforcement Guidelines distributed by the EEOC this summer. On December 3rd, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service, and decide whether the EEOC interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act correctly in deciding that an employer is “obligated to treat a pregnant employee temporarily unable to perform the functions of her job the same as it treats other employees similarly unable to perform their jobs, whether by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, leave, or fringe benefits.” More >

Updated & Enhanced EEOC Enforcement Guidance – What Does it Mean for Employers and Pregnant Employees?

November 24, 2014
Posted In EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employee Hazards, Employment Law, Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA"), Human Resource Department, Job Requirement, Maternity Leave, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Young v. UPS

In 2013 alone, 5,342 discrimination claims were filed alleging pregnancy discrimination. The result – employers paid out over $17 million in monetary benefits last year. In fact, the EEOC’s statistics do not include monetary benefits obtained through litigation; thus, employers likely paid out a significant amount more than $17 million. To avoid adding to this figure, employers must pay particular attention to pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, be mindful of what is required to comply with federal and state law, and take precautions to ensure that no discriminatory practices exist in the workplace. More >

Kentucky Supreme Court Decision Drastically Impacts All Non-Compete Agreements

By Cynthia L. Effinger on November 20, 2014
Posted In Creech v. Brown, Employee Benefits, Employee Contracts, Employee Handbook, Employee Personnel Files, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Human Resource Department, Non-Compete Agreement

Earlier this year, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and held, in a landmark decision, that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-compete agreement. This reverses prior precedent that employer-employee agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this article focuses on the consideration requirement only, as the Kentucky Supreme Court chose not to address any other issues. More >

Who Owns Your Business’s Social Media Accounts?

November 10, 2014
Posted In Employee Handbook, Employment Law, Online Account Protection, Online Defamation, Social Media, Social Media Ownership, Social Media Policies, Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP), Social Privacy Laws

Businesses are increasingly relying on social media to establish and grow their products and/or services. While the advantages of using social media are vast (i.e., it is inexpensive, comes with a virtually global audience, and has frequent and immediate contact potential), it does come with risks. Among the dangers is failing to address who owns a social media account. This is very much still an emerging issue in the law, but some existing case law and best practices can provide guidance as to how these ownership cases develop and how they can be avoided. More >

Getting “Sandwiched” Into a Non-Compete Agreement

November 6, 2014
Posted In Employee Contracts, Employee Forms, Employee Handbook, Employee Training, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Human Resource Department, Job Description, Job Requirement, Non-Compete Agreement

The Huffington Post recently reported that Jimmy John’s, the national sandwich chain, requires its workers to sign strict non-compete agreements. The agreement was disclosed as part of a lawsuit by employees, and many in the employment industry are wondering if such an agreement is really necessary for the company’s minimum wage workers. These agreements are usually saved for high-level executives or those subject to proprietary information – not the guy behind the counter making a sub. More >

Tags: employment agreement, employment law, Jimmy John, Non-compete agreements

Case to Watch: Integrity Staffing v. Jesse Busk

October 27, 2014
Posted In Employee Misconduct, Employment Law, Security Checks

The U.S. SGavel on court deskupreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case where the fundamental question concerned whether employers have to pay workers for time spent undergoing security checks as part of their entering and or exiting the workplace. The outcome of this case will likely affect how hourly employees are compensated for tasks outside their regular work shift. More >

EEOC Sues Companies for Transgender Discrimination

October 13, 2014
Posted In EEOC, Employee Hazards, Hiring and Firing, Litigation, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has just filed suit against two companies for alleged discrimination against transgendered employees. The suits were filed separately in Florida and Michigan, against Lakeland Eye Clinic and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., respectively. In both cases, employees alleged that they were fired after they disclosed they were undergoing gender transitions. More >

Lexington, KYLouisville, KYFrankfort, KYFrankfort, KY: MML&K Government Solutions