Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Temporary Leave
- IRS
- Treasury
- Paid Sick Leave
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Salary Theshold
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Wage and Hour
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Independent Contractors
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- OSHA
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- Overtime Pay
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- Young v. UPS
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- copyright
- EEOC
- Intellectual Property
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Security Checks
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Creech v. Brown
- Lane v. Franks
- Cloud
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Non-exempt employees
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Northwestern
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- Crystalline Silica
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Companionship services
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Private employers
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Freedom of Speech
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Reference checks
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Employee Hazards
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Play or Pay
- Record Retention
- Sequester
- severance pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- tax refund
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- posting requirements
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Crisis Management
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Workplace Politics
- Criminal Background Checks
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Class Action Waivers
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 3 posts from February 2012.
Plan Ahead – The Lesson of Fighting Unemployment Benefit Claims
Few things are more frustrating for an employer than terminating an employee for cause due to violation of company policy, be it for failing a drug test or some form of misconduct, and then that employee being awarded unemployment benefits. We here at McBrayer PLLC find this result to be all too common, and then it is typically an uphill battle to overturn the award. In many instances, the problem lies not in the award itself, but in the lack of foresight and preparation which preceded the termination of the employee. If the first time the issue of unemployment benefits is addressed is post-termination, then the key moment to address the issue has likely been lost. More >
The Physician Employment Trend Continues
As healthcare reform continues to be implemented, the trend toward clinical integration and consolidation also continues and will be a defining characteristic of healthcare delivery in the years ahead. One critical component of clinical integration and consolidation has been health systems employing physicians to form large multi-specialty groups to serve the patient population. Physicians contemplating entering into an employment relationship with a hospital or health system must examine a number of critical issues before entering into an employment agreement. More >
Retaliation by Association
Last January, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded those protected under the retaliation provisions of Title VII and included employees who have a close family relationship to a person who has made a complaint of discrimination. Previously, only those persons who actually made or supported a complaint were protected by law. However, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Supreme Court unanimously held that it is an unlawful employment practice to fire or otherwise retaliate against an employee's "close family member" who has filed claim of discrimination. In Thompson, two employees were engaged to one another. The female co-worker filed a claim of discrimination against her supervisors and subsequently, the male was fired. The male filed a claim of retaliation under Title VII claiming that his termination was in retaliation for his fiance's discrimination complaint. While the Sixth Circuit held that he did not state a claim under the statute as one who "engaged in protected activity," the U.S. Supreme Court reversed holding that the anti-retaliation provisions protect conduct that may disuade a worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. As applied in this case, the Court determined that the female co-worker may have been disuaded from making a claim of discrimination if she knew that her fiance could be fired as a result. This case gives a cause of action to the "close family member" for retaliation and opens employers up to additional liability. More >
