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 6 posts from May 2015.
Complaining to the Boss? The Second Circuit Says That's Protected
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation that oral complaints are protected by anti-relation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), but it did not address a vital question: must those complaints be “filed” with a government agency to receive protection against retaliation, or will simple oral complaints to an employer trigger such provisions?[1] The Second Circuit recently moved to fill that gap, ruling in Greathouse v. JHS Security, Inc. that merely “filing” an oral complaint with an employer is enough to trigger anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA[2]. More >
For Equal Pay Act Comparison, “Equal” Can Mean “Greater Than”
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”) bars employers from discriminating in the payment of wages between employees on the basis of their gender. The employees of different genders must be performing equal work in jobs which require “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”[1] In an odd set of facts, the Tenth Circuit case of Riser v. QEP Energy hinged on an unusual definition of “equal.”[2] More >
Facebook is Not a Picket Line
The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of employees to connect and address conditions at work, and recent decisions have held that this protection extends to certain work-related conversations on social media.[1] However, it has yet to be determined exactly how far this protection will reach. More >
A Title VII Transition?: Protections for Transgender Persons in the Workplace
Three years ago, the EEOC issued an opinion which held, for the first time, that discrimination against transgender persons based on gender identity is impermissible sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Holder (Apr. 20, 2012). Last month, the EEOC revisited discrimination against transgender persons and released a decision that sheds some light on how the practical applications of this finding may affect employers, holding that certain bathroom restrictions for a transgender employee constituted discrimination. See Lusardi v. McHugh (Apr. 1, 2015). More >
Local Court Ruling Takes the Hands off of Hands On: Tensions between Fairness Ordinances and Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
Businesses should keep a close eye on a case that continues to develop in Lexington, Kentucky, as it highlights the current tensions between emerging, evolving antidiscrimination paradigms and rights of free expression and freedom of religion as they exist under both federal and state laws. More >
The Cost of Buying Silence – Non-disclosure Provisions Run Afoul of Federal Agencies
There’s an inherent tension in requiring an employee to sign an agreement restricting his or her ability to discuss activity in the workplace. On one hand, employers with confidential business practices and trade secrets need to maintain those investments in intellectual capital both during and after employment. On the other, these agreements can stifle both the rights of employees to seek redress of workplace grievances as well as restrict the ability of regulatory agencies to investigate and correct employer practices or violations of the law. The tenor of recent enforcement actions by various agencies as to strict non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) and non-disclosure provisions in separation agreements should give employers cause to re-evaluate their own attempts to limit liability. More >
