Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Arbitration
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Law
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Volunteer
- Creech v. Brown
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Cloud
- Crystalline Silica
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Medical Exams
- Motivating Factor
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Payroll
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Reference checks
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Defamation
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Online Account Protection
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- Posting Requirements
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- Social Media Ownership
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Crisis Management
- Federal Department of Labor
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Public Sector Liability
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Communications Decency Act
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Contracts
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
Showing 9 posts from April 2015.
The Big and Small Implications in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association
There are two important takeaways from Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association,[1] one with a broad scope and the other much narrower. The broader ruling exempts agency interpretations of laws and regulations from any notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), allowing agencies to substantially alter interpretations without notice. On a different note, however, is the finding that Department of Labor (“DoL”) Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) classification interpretations are subject to change at any moment. More >
Employers – Are You Prepared for New NLRB Election Rules?
On April 14th, the new National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) election rules came into effect, creating a potential headache for employers. Perhaps most critically, the timeline between the initial petition for union election and the election itself may be as short as 13 days, giving employers limited notice of potential union organization and activity. These accelerated elections are derisively (but maybe not unjustly) referred to as “ambush” or “quickie” elections. More >
ADA “Direct Threat” Defense Just Got a Little Easier
The rights and protections afforded to those with disabilities by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) are not without limitations. Accommodations for disabled employees must be reasonable, and the employee must still be able to perform essential job functions with an accommodation. Additionally, the employee’s disability cannot pose a risk to her- or himself or others in the course of job functions if that risk cannot be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation. This is known as the “direct threat” defense – adverse employment or hiring actions taken against an employee or applicant were done so to mitigate a direct threat to the safety of the employee or others. More >
Vetting Employees via Social Media – Walking the Digital Tightrope
As Comedy Central is discovering with the new host of The Daily Show, Trevor Noah, failure to fully vet an employee’s social media activity can have unexpected consequences. At the same time, an employee’s social media profiles can yield information that may be harmful to employers in the hiring process. There are potential pitfalls to examining an applicant’s social media profiles both too closely and not closely enough, and the lines are difficult to discern. More >
EEOC Consent Decrees are its Most Powerful Enforcement Mechanisms
The vast majority of settlements between an employer and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) take the form of a court-approved consent decree. This document is a public record designed to highlight and account for certain wrongs in a way that sidesteps an admission of guilt in favor of the implementation of remedial measures to prevent further unlawful practices. A consent decree includes certain action and reporting mandates that employers must follow, providing the EEOC with the most powerful enforcement tool in its arsenal. More >
Pregnancy Discrimination Claims after Young v. UPS
It was a difficult delivery, but the Supreme Court in Young v. UPS[1] gave birth to a new test in determining whether an employer has violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”)[2]. More >
Sexual Harassment Mistakes Employers Make
Sexual harassment claims can quickly become a nightmare for employers, but so many aspects of the nightmare are caused in part by the employer’s own actions. The employer has opportunities to mitigate the damage in two key areas – the sexual harassment policy itself before the alleged harassment incident and the investigation that takes place afterword. This post will look at mistakes made in these two particular areas that can hurt employers and lead to potentially costly damages. More >
Is it Time to Review Your Employee Handbooks?
On March 18th, National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Richard F. Griffin, Jr., issued a report[1] (“the Report”) concerning employer rules and employee handbooks in light of recent employer rule cases. Most of the violations found in these cases occurred under the first prong of the two-prong the test in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia,[2] which looks to whether an employer rule explicitly restricts protected activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Report used these cases as a guide to provide clear examples of both illegal rules and their legal counterparts, giving employers a valuable tool in evaluating employee handbooks and workplace rules.
More >
Employers – Don’t Be a Victim of Suspicious Timing
Where there’s smoke, there may be fire – at least, that appears to be a key takeaway from the Seventh Circuit case of Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries. The holding in this case is predicated on the notion that suspicious timing in an adverse employment action can give rise to a claim of retaliation under Title VII in absence of other solid evidence. More >
