Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- SCOTUS
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Arbitration
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Adverse Employment Action
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Non-exempt employees
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Home Health Care Workers
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Northwestern
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- At-will employment
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- KYSHRM 2013
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Play or Pay
- Private employers
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- Tax Refund
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Crisis Management
- Employee Arrests
- Employee photographs
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Telecommuting
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 48 posts in Employment Discrimination Laws.
The Obergefell Decision and Employers
The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges significantly altered the legal landscape with respect to same-sex marriages, finding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires all states to both license in-state same-sex marriages and recognize valid same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. The Court did not, however, go so far as to reach issues such as discrimination in employment or public accommodation. So, while legal same-sex marriage is the law of the land, those newly-married couples may face legal uncertainty when it comes to discrimination in public accommodations or their place of employment, unless contravening state law applies. That said, there are still several ways that the Obergefell decision and its counterpart, United States v. Windsor, will affect employers and employees. More >
“Too Black”: Waitress’s Claim of Color Bias Raises Novel Title VII Claim
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in employment decisions based upon an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Bias claims based on a claimant’s skin color are nearly unanimously predicated upon bias against ‘race’ rather than ‘color.’ Circumstances can arise, as the Fifth Circuit found, where ‘color,’ rather than ‘race,’ is a discrete type of alleged discrimination. In a novel holding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in Etienne v. Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza, LLC that a separate claim of ‘color’ can provide the necessary foundation for a claim of discrimination based on ‘race.’ More >
Employment at Will Comes with Many Exceptions
Kentucky employment law generally recognizes that most employment is “at-will” – meaning, employees serve at the pleasure of the employer, and termination of an employee does not require “just cause.” There are several circumstances, however, where laws and other factors prohibit employers from terminating an employee without a well-documented showing of cause. Employers should be aware of the circumstances under which they may not terminate an employee without just cause. More >
blogs-Employment-Law-Blog,updated-enhanced-eeoc-enforcement-guidance-what-does-it-mean-for-employers-and-pregnant-employees
In our previous blog post, we discussed and detailed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the stringent Enforcement Guidelines distributed by the EEOC this summer. On December 3rd, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service, and decide whether the EEOC interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act correctly in deciding that an employer is “obligated to treat a pregnant employee temporarily unable to perform the functions of her job the same as it treats other employees similarly unable to perform their jobs, whether by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, leave, or fringe benefits.” More >
More Transparency on Horizon for Federal Contractors
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a proposed rule that would bar federal contractors from firing or discriminating against employees or applicants who discuss their pay, or the pay of their co-workers. The proposal comes after President Obama’s executive order in April, which instructed the DOL to issue a rule requiring pay transparency among federal contractors. More >
EEOC Sues Home Care Agency for GINA Violation
On September 17, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a press release announcing it is suing BNV Home Care Agency, Inc. (“BNV”) for practices that are prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). More >
The EEOC in 2014
Last year was a record-breaking year for the Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which obtained approximately $372 million for workers alleging workplace discrimination. In the EEOC’s annual report, the agency asked for $75 million to support their litigation efforts in 2014…thus, they show no sign of slowing down. According to EEOC Commissioner Constance Barker, “Since we’ve got so much authority delegated to the agency’s general counsel, 2013 really became the year of litigation, and I think 2014 will continue that trend…I think private companies ought to expect to see more aggressive use of the litigation process, more aggressive pursuit of systemic discrimination cases and more cases bypassing the commission’s review and vote.” 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 >
The Use of Background Checks in Hiring Procedures
The Sixth Circuit (encompassing Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee and Ohio) recently sent a strong message that baseless suits against employers will not survive summary judgment. The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. et al., No. 13-3408 (6th Cir., Apr. 9, 2014), involved the use of credit checks in hiring decisions. More >
“Sex-Plus” Discrimination Equals Possible Liability, Part II
On Monday, we discussed the Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt., Ltd. case. The Sixth Circuit held that an African American woman had triable race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII even though she was replaced with a Hispanic female. In other words, in a “sex-plus” case such as Shazor’s, an employer is not permitted to undermine a black female’s prima facie case by showing that “white women and African American men received the same treatment” as the plaintiff. More >
