Employment Law Blog

Can Having Employees Pose for the Camera Pose Problems for You?

Employers have a variety of reasons for using employee photos, including: More >

Workplace Politics: Cooling the Debates

With the Presidential election just around the corner, employees may be talking about a lot more than gossip around the water cooler. Given the argumentative nature of politics, every employer should be listening for potentially volatile discussions, with a goal of keeping the workplace comfortable and free of hostility this election season. More >

Are Personal Emails Private in the Workplace?

Can companies monitor and read personal emails?  While this is no longer a novel question, companies continue to struggle with finding ways to protect their ability to access and monitor employees’ email activity.  A review of recent cases reminds us that while the answer is usually situational, the result almost always hinges on the strength and specificity of the company’s computer and email use policy. More >

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 7^th 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.

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 >

Retaliation by Association

Last January, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded those protected under the retaliation provisions of Title VII and included employees who have a close family relationship to a person who has made a complaint of discrimination.  Previously, only those persons who actually made or supported a complaint were protected by law.  However, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Supreme Court unanimously held that it is an unlawful employment practice to fire or otherwise retaliate against an employee's "close family member" who has filed claim of discrimination.  In Thompson, two employees were engaged to one another.  The female co-worker filed a claim of discrimination against her supervisors and subsequently, the male was fired.  The male filed a claim of retaliation under Title VII claiming that his termination was in retaliation for his fiancée's discrimination complaint. While the Sixth Circuit held that he did not state a claim under the statute as one who "engaged in protected activity," the U.S. Supreme Court reversed holding that the anti-retaliation provisions protect conduct that may dissuade a worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.  As applied in this case, the Court determined that the female co-worker may have been dissuaded from making a claim of discrimination if she knew that her fiancée could be fired as a result.  This case gives a cause of action to the "close family member" for retaliation and opens employers up to additional liability. More >