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")
- Work from Home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Copyright
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Intellectual Property
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Security Screening
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Young v. UPS
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Security Checks
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Lane v. Franks
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- "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
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Private employers
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Play or Pay
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- Tax Refund
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Municipal Liability
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Crisis Management
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Salary Threshold
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Luke A. Wingfield
Showing 13 posts by Luke A. Wingfield.
The Sixth Circuit Broadens Telecommuting as a Reasonable Accommodation For Disabled Employees
In a new decision involving the Ford Motor Company handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court has expanded the instances in which a telecommuting arrangement would be considered a reasonable accommodation for disabled employees in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).[1] In Ford Motor Company, Jane Harris, who worked in a supply purchasing position, was terminated from her position after she asked to perform her job primarily via telecommunication in an attempt to control her unfortunate symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. There was no dispute that she possessed a disability affecting a major life activity. So the discussion revolved around whether she could do her job via telecommuting and whether Ford’s proposed alternative accommodations were acceptable. Ford denied the request for telecommuting even though it did allow those in positions such as Harris to work from home on a limited basis. According to Ford, Jane’s physical presence at the workplace was critical to the group dynamic of the resale-buyer team and thus her request was unreasonable. The district court sided with Ford, granting the employer summary judgment as to claims of failure-to-accommodate under the ADA and retaliation. The question on appeal was whether Harris created sufficient questions of fact for her case to be allowed to proceed. The Sixth Circuit agreed that Harris did present sufficient questions of fact for her claim to be considered and in so doing appeared to send a message to employers that they need to be more flexible in considering telecommunication as a reasonable accommodation. More >
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part II
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part II More >
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part I
A common administrative headache for employers is dealing with terminated employees who go on to seek unemployment benefits. While an employer has the right to challenge the award of unemployment benefits, choosing to do so requires careful consideration. The process can be time-consuming and may require a commitment of more resources than one would like. Additionally, challenging an award of unemployment benefits may serve to push a former employee into litigation that he or she may not have pursued otherwise. That being said, if an employer has good documentation regarding a termination and clear, uniformly enforced employee policies, challenging a claim for unemployment benefits can be successful. More >
