Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Wage and Hour
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Overtime Pay
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- Young v. UPS
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Compliance
- copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Work for Hire
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Amazon
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Security Checks
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- 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
- Whistleblower
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Crystalline Silica
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- 2013)
- Bullying
- Compensatory time off
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Jury duty
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- 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
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- NADSA Conference
- Private employers
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- COBRA
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- United States v. Windsor
- Defamation
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Freedom of Speech
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Reference checks
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Employee Hazards
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Sequester
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Employer Mandate
- FICA
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- 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
- Employee Arrests
- posting requirements
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Crisis Management
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- social privacy laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Workplace Politics
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 8 posts in ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”).
Morbid Obesity is Not a Disability in Kentucky – For Now
There’s no question that obesity is a national health crisis, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that more than a third of adults in the U.S. are obese. In 2013, the American Medical Association pronounced that it now finds obesity to be a disease, adding more fuel to the fire that suggests individuals afflicted with this disease could be considered “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). With regard to state law, however, the Kentucky Supreme Court closed the door – at least, for the time being - on disability claims with regard to obesity in the case of Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy, Inc.[1] More >
ADA “Direct Threat” Defense Just Got a Little Easier
The rights and protections afforded to those with disabilities by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) are not without limitations. Accommodations for disabled employees must be reasonable, and the employee must still be able to perform essential job functions with an accommodation. Additionally, the employee’s disability cannot pose a risk to her- or himself or others in the course of job functions if that risk cannot be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation. This is known as the “direct threat” defense – adverse employment or hiring actions taken against an employee or applicant were done so to mitigate a direct threat to the safety of the employee or others. More >
Anxiety over Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA for Social Anxiety Disorder
Employers might be just a bit more anxious after learning that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) defined the “ability to interact with others” as a major life activity, bringing social anxiety disorder into the scope of protection afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Fourth Circuit, in the case of Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts,[1] recently agreed with the EEOC that social anxiety disorder may be a disability for ADA purposes. For practical purposes, however, the important takeaway in this case is that reasonable accommodation requests should never be taken lightly and all decisions that adversely affect employees should come with ample documentation. More >
Sixth Circuit Vacates Decision On Telecommuting Accommodation
In May, we wrote about the Sixth Circuit’s interesting decision in Equal Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Co., wherein the Court expanded the instances in which a telecommuting arrangement would be considered a reasonable accommodation for disabled employees in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).[1] More >
US Supreme Court Will Review Important Case Affecting Pregnant Workers, Part II
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 >
A Review of the EEOC in 2013
One of the best ways that employers can know what liability risks they are most likely to encounter in any given year is to review what an agency was targeting in the previous year and to review the agency’s work plan. I recently reviewed some 2013 statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) that are worth sharing: More >
Kentucky Court of Appeals Weighs in Favor of Employee: Is Morbid Obesity a Disability? Part II
Our post on Monday detailed background information on a recent decision from the Kentucky Court of Appeals styled as Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy, Inc. Before being heard by the Court of Appeals, the case was heard at the trial court, where the court had to consider whether the plaintiff, Melissa Pennington, was disabled as defined by the Kentucky Civil Rights Act due to morbid obesity. More >
Weight For It: How Will The AMA’s New Decision Affect Employers?
In a press release issued on June 18, 2013, the American Medical Association (“AMA”) declared obesity as a “disease.” The decision was met with sharp controversy, as it automatically classified millions of overweight Americans as diseased. Critics of the classification believe that obesity is not a disease and that there is no way to determine one’s health based on a number on the scale. The AMA hopes the new label will lead to better coverage and treatment for those who suffer from obesity. More >
