Contact Us
Categories
- SCOTUS
- Overtime
- Overtime Rule
- Federal Trade Commission
- FTC
- Service Animals
- Remote Work
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Minors
- Work from Home
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- COVID-19
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Worker Misclassification
- FMLA Retaliation
- Non-exempt employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- 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. Department of Labor
- Union
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- EEOC
- Employer Group Health Plans
- HIPAA
- Independent Contractors
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Employee Training
- At-will employment
- Criminal Background Checks
- Federal Department of Labor
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Government employees
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Payroll
- Severance Pay
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Litigation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Online Defamation
- OSHA
- Pension Plans
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Crisis Management
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Employee Contracts
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Hiring and Firing
- Internet & Media Law
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
Showing 1 post from June 2012.
Pregnancy Discrimination
In preparing for a recent mediation, I learned that that there has not been a verdict for a plaintiff presenting a pregnancy discrimination case in Kentucky for fifteen years. That, however, does not mean that the cause of action is dead. Employers should remain cognizant that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers from discriminating against female employees for “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”. In fact, since the Hall v. Nalco Co. decision was rendered by the 7th Circuit in 2008, Courts have consistently interpreted “related medical conditions” to include pre-pregnancy procedures such as in vitro fertilization procedures. Protecting yourself from a discrimination claim in this context may present unique difficulties as an employers’ institutional knowledge of an employee’s medical condition may depend on the degree to which an employee feels comfortable disclosing the reason for her medical treatment to her supervisor. Of course, employers who intend to take either an active or passive adverse employment action against a female employee must be prepared to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Employers should keep in mind that an adverse employment decision based upon a female’s medical condition, or absence from work due to an unspecified medical condition, could result in the first favorable verdict for a Plaintiff alleging pregnancy discrimination in recent memory.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.

