Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- 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
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- Paid Sick Leave
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Independent Contractors
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- 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
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Work for Hire
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Security Checks
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Lane v. Franks
- Non-exempt employees
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Northwestern
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- "Ban-the-box"
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Violence
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Companionship services
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- Jury duty
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- Medical Exams
- Payroll
- Private employers
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Wage garnishment
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Freedom of Speech
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- 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
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- posting requirements
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- severance pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- tax refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- United States v. Quality Stores
- 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
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Workplace Politics
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 5 posts from April 2012.
New Guidance on the Use of Criminal Background Checks in Hiring
If you are an employer which uses criminal background checks as part of your decision process in deciding whether to hire an applicant, you should be aware that on April 25, 2012 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a new Guidance (EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002) which further clarifies under what circumstances such a practice may in fact be viewed as discriminatory. While the use of criminal background checks to screen applicants may seem like a colorblind endeavor, the EEOC has outlined via its Guidance when that activity can have an unlawful impact on certain groups of job applicants. This finding is based upon the EEOC’s noted findings, based upon historical data, that different races are incarcerated at different rates, making a prohibition on not hiring anyone with a conviction a prohibition which is more limiting to African-American applicants as opposed to Caucasians for example. Because of this new clarification on the potential unlawful effects criminal background checks may have, employers generally need to once again examine their hiring policies to make sure that they will not run afoul of the law even if one’s motive in conducting criminal background checks is pure. More >
Plan Documents Rule Ineffective to Protect ERISA Administrators Against Claims by Adverse Spouses
By now, it is abundantly clear that administrators of ERISA pension or life-insurance plans are required to pay death benefits to the spousal beneficiary identified in the employee’s plan documents even when the employee has divorced the spouse identified at the time the benefits become payable. The so called “Plan Documents Rule” can have a harsh effect as it applies even when the former spouse has waived all interest in an employee’s ERISA plan during state court divorce proceedings. See McMillan v. Parrott, 913 F.2d 310 (6th Cir. 1990); Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009). The Supreme Court has rationalized strict interpretation of the Plan Documents Rule, in part, because it establishes a uniform administrative scheme and simplifies the duties incumbent upon a plan administrator in making distributions. More >
Unpaid Interns – Too Good to be True?
With summer fast-approaching, many employers are now deciding whether to hire summer interns. Undoubtedly, the benefits of an internship extend to both the employer and the intern. The company receives the intern’s services, while the intern enjoys exposure to and experience within his or her chosen field. If your company is considering hiring an intern, however, it is imperative that you seriously evaluate the internship program and policies to ensure that your company is not violating federal law. More >
School’s Out for the Summer!: Important Employment Law Considerations when Hiring Interns and Graduates
Spring is here, and along with the change in season comes a flurry of graduation announcements, parties, and for employers, a flurry of applications and resumes from recent high school and college graduates. Recent graduates and interns provide a wealth of talent for many employers, and often become a core part of their operations and strategy. However, there are a few employment law considerations that must be understood by a company’s HR representative, and really, everyone involved in the hiring process, when advertising, hiring and determining wages for your Spring hires. More >
Class Action Waivers in Employee Arbitration Provisions: Proceed with Caution – For Now.
Employee arbitration provisions containing class or collective action waivers are frequently utilized by non-union employers, often within employment agreements as a condition of employment. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), however, recently issued a decision regarding the validity of such provisions which could significantly impact the ability of employers to enforce class waivers. More >
