Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- 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
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Misconduct
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Law
- HIPAA
- Independent Contractors
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Telecommuting
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- At-will employment
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Training
- 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 3 posts from November 2014.
Kentucky Supreme Court Decision Drastically Impacts All Non-Compete Agreements
Earlier this year, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and held, in a landmark decision, that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-compete agreement. This reverses prior precedent that employer-employee agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this article focuses on the consideration requirement only, as the Kentucky Supreme Court chose not to address any other issues. More >
Who Owns Your Business’s Social Media Accounts?
Businesses are increasingly relying on social media to establish and grow their products and/or services. While the advantages of using social media are vast (i.e., it is inexpensive, comes with a virtually global audience, and has frequent and immediate contact potential), it does come with risks. Among the dangers is failing to address who owns a social media account. This is very much still an emerging issue in the law, but some existing case law and best practices can provide guidance as to how these ownership cases develop and how they can be avoided. More >
Getting “Sandwiched” Into a Non-Compete Agreement
The Huffington Post recently reported that Jimmy John’s, the national sandwich chain, requires its workers to sign strict non-compete agreements. The agreement was disclosed as part of a lawsuit by employees, and many in the employment industry are wondering if such an agreement is really necessary for the company’s minimum wage workers. These agreements are usually saved for high-level executives or those subject to proprietary information – not the guy behind the counter making a sub. More >
