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: niner, hotel, hotel, foxtrot, niner, three

* Indicates a required field.

Stay Connected

RSSSubscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Facebook

Archives

Categories

McBrayer Blogs

Showing 47 posts in Employment Discrimination Laws.

“Too Black”: Waitress’s Claim of Color Bias Raises Novel Title VII Claim

February 25, 2015
Posted In Adverse Employment Action, Civil Rights, Employment Discrimination Laws, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in employment decisions based upon an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Bias claims based on a claimant’s skin color are nearly unanimously predicated upon bias against ‘race’ rather than ‘color.’ Circumstances can arise, as the Fifth Circuit found, where ‘color,’ rather than ‘race,’ is a discrete type of alleged discrimination. In a novel holding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in Etienne v. Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza, LLC that a separate claim of ‘color’ can provide the necessary foundation for a claim of discrimination based on ‘race.’ More >

Employment at Will Comes with Many Exceptions

February 24, 2015
Posted In At-will employment, Employment Discrimination Laws, Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Kentucky employment law generally recognizes that most employment is “at-will” – meaning, employees serve at the pleasure of the employer, and termination of an employee does not require “just cause.” There are several circumstances, however, where laws and other factors prohibit employers from terminating an employee without a well-documented showing of cause. Employers should be aware of the circumstances under which they may not terminate an employee without just cause. 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 >

More Transparency on Horizon for Federal Contractors

October 8, 2014
Posted In Department of Labor ("DOL"), Employee Hazards, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Federal contractors, Government employees

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a proposed rule that would bar federal contractors from firing or discriminating against employees or applicants who discuss their pay, or the pay of their co-workers. The proposal comes after President Obama’s executive order in April, which instructed the DOL to issue a rule requiring pay transparency among federal contractors. More >

EEOC Sues Home Care Agency for GINA Violation

October 6, 2014
Posted In EEOC, Employee Forms, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA"), Hiring and Firing

On September 17, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a press release announcing it is suing BNV Home Care Agency, Inc. (“BNV”) for practices that are prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). More >

The EEOC in 2014

By Cynthia L. Effinger on May 21, 2014
Posted In EEOC, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA"), Hiring and Firing

Last year was a record-breaking year for the Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which obtained approximately $372 million for workers alleging workplace discrimination. In the EEOC’s annual report, the agency asked for $75 million to support their litigation efforts in 2014…thus, they show no sign of slowing down. According to EEOC Commissioner Constance Barker, “Since we’ve got so much authority delegated to the agency’s general counsel, 2013 really became the year of litigation, and I think 2014 will continue that trend…I think private companies ought to expect to see more aggressive use of the litigation process, more aggressive pursuit of systemic discrimination cases and more cases bypassing the commission’s review and vote.” More >

A Review of the EEOC in 2013

By Cynthia L. Effinger on May 19, 2014
Posted In ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), EEOC, EEOC v. Hill Country Farms, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Litigation

One of the best ways that employers can know what liability risks they are most likely to encounter in any given year is to review what an agency was targeting in the previous year and to review the agency’s work plan. I recently reviewed some 2013 statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) that are worth sharing: More >

The Use of Background Checks in Hiring Procedures

May 7, 2014
Posted In Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp., Hiring and Firing, Job applications

The Sixth Circuit (encompassing Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee and Ohio) recently sent a strong message that baseless suits against employers will not survive summary judgment. The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. et al., No. 13-3408 (6th Cir., Apr. 9, 2014), involved the use of credit checks in hiring decisions. More >

“Sex-Plus” Discrimination Equals Possible Liability, Part II

March 12, 2014
Posted In Adverse Employment Action, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Litigation, Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.

On Monday, we discussed the Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt., Ltd. case. The Sixth Circuit held that an African American woman had triable race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII even though she was replaced with a Hispanic female. In other words, in a “sex-plus” case such as Shazor’s, an employer is not permitted to undermine a black female’s prima facie case by showing that “white women and African American men received the same treatment” as the plaintiff. More >

“Sex-Plus” Discrimination Equals Possible Liability

March 10, 2014
Posted In Adverse Employment Action, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Litigation, Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt., Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

The Sixth Circuit recently addressed whether a “sex-plus” claim of discrimination can be made under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Sex plus" refers to policies or practices by which an employer classifies employees on the basis of sex plus another characteristic, such as race or age. The case, Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt., Ltd., 2014 BL 42520, 6th Cir., No. 13-3253, 2/19/14, reinforces the concept that employers must consider employees’ protected traits as an “intersectional” whole, rather than separate, individual aspects. More >

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