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: november, mike, romeo, foxtrot, tango

* Indicates a required field.

Stay Connected

RSSSubscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Facebook

Archives

Categories

McBrayer Blogs

Showing 246 posts in Employment Law.

Changes on the Horizon for Federal Job Training Programs

July 28, 2014
Posted In Employee Training, Employment Law

Federal job training programs can expect a big overhaul, thanks to President Obama who signed legislation on July 22 that is intended to streamline a tangled web of programs. In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Development Act. The law provided money to states and cities for job retraining. In 2011, in an investigation by the Government Accountability Office, it was discovered that the federal government spent $18 billion a year on 47 separate job training programs run by nine different agencies, many of which were overlapping or duplicative. More >

US Supreme Court Will Review Important Case Affecting Pregnant Workers, Part II

By Cynthia L. Effinger on July 16, 2014
Posted In ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), EEOC, Employment Law, Litigation, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Young v. UPS

On Monday, details about the case Young v. UPS were discussed. Young was a part-time UPS driver who, after becoming unable to lift heavy packages due to her pregnancy, was denied her request for light duty. She alleges that UPS violated the law by failing to provide her the same accommodations as it provided to nonpregnant employees with physical disabilities who were similar in their ability to work. After the District Court and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals both found for UPS, Young petitioned filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. UPS, however, responded to the petition with an argument that the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) could render the case moot.  The actions that led to the suit occurred in 2006 – before the amendments to the ADA were made. More >

US Supreme Court Will Review Important Case Affecting Pregnant Workers

By Cynthia L. Effinger on July 14, 2014
Posted In Adverse Employment Action, Employee Benefits, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Litigation, Maternity Leave, Pregnancy Discrimination Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to review Young v. UPS, a decision that will determine whether and to what extent an employer must provide pregnant employees with work accommodations, such as light duty, that are given to other workers with disabilities. More >

Don’t Get Burned With Teens Working During Summer Months

July 9, 2014
Posted In Employee Hazards, Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Hiring and Firing, Human Resource Department

Ah, summer. Crowded pools, yards in need of tending, restaurants overflowing with customers – all present the perfect work opportunity for teenagers. For employers, hiring a seasonal or temporary workforce of teenagers comes with a few extra things to keep in mind. The federal law controlling child labor is the Fair Labor Standards Act, but Kentucky also has its own set of child labor laws with which employers must comply. As the summer heats up, remember these things to avoid getting burned with legal troubles: More >

DOL Proposes New Meaning for “Spouse” for FMLA Purposes

July 7, 2014
Posted In Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), Department of Labor ("DOL"), Employee Benefits, Employment Law, Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)

On June 20, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposed regulations to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act’s (“FMLA”) definition of “spouse.” Current FMLA regulations define a spouse as “a husband or wife defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the state where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized.” (emphasis added). The DOL is proposing to move from a “state of residence” rule to a rule based on the “place of celebration” (i.e., where the marriage was entered into). The proposed definition specifically includes same-sex marriages and reads as follows: More >

Have You Conducted a Mid-Year Performance Review?

July 2, 2014
Posted In Employee Performance Reviews, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Human Resource Department

As we find ourselves halfway through 2014, I suggest that employers pause to consider conducting a mid-year performance review. Many employers meet their annual review process with a certain amount of dread and, thus, doing it twice seems rather painful. There are, however, compelling reasons to conduct a bi-annual review for your workforce. Let’s consider a few of the positive things that come from this practice: More >

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Increased Protection to Government Employees

By Luke A. Wingfield on June 30, 2014
Posted In Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Lane v. Franks, Litigation

The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment. The case, Lane v. Franks, [1]centered on a public employee, Lane, who worked at an Alabama community college where he led the school’s program for at-risk youth. More >

An Important New Decision Affects Non-Compete Agreements in Kentucky

June 20, 2014
Posted In Creech v. Brown, Employee Benefits, Employee Contracts, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Litigation, Non-Compete Agreement

The Kentucky Supreme Court recently reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and declared that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-competition agreement. In the course of reaching its decision, the Court clarified prior case law dealing with the issue of whether non-competition agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this post focuses on the consideration requirement only. More >

NLRB Decision Limits Employer’s Off-Duty Policy, Part II

June 11, 2014
Posted In Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employee Personnel Files, Employment Law, National Labor Relations Act, National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Earlier this week, we provided information relative to the NLRB’s decision in Piedmont Gardens, 360 NLRB No. 100 (2014).The issue in the case was the employer’s ability to regulate off-duty employee access to the property, a nursing home. The company handbook contained a provision that generally prohibited off-duty access, unless such access was previously authorized by a supervisor. The NLRB found the “unless previously authorized” caveat to be unlawful because it gave supervisors an unlimited scope in determining when and why employees could access the building. More >

NLRB Decision Limits Employer’s Off-Duty Policy

June 9, 2014
Posted In Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employee Personnel Files, Employment Law, National Labor Relations Act, National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a decision in Piedmont Gardens, 260 NLRB NO. 100 (2014) regarding the legality of an employer’s off-duty access policy. Piedmont Gardens is a nursing home. Many employers, especially those in health care or other highly-regulated industries, have policies that prohibit against employees lingering around the job site when not working. Off-duty employees can not only be a disruption to the business and create security risks, but can also increase an employer’s liability. After the newest NLRB decision on the issue, however, employers should review their policies to ensure that they do not run afoul of federal law. More >

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