Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- remote work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- work from home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- 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
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- 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
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- copyright
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Intellectual Property
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Creech v. Brown
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Security Checks
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Cloud
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Medical Exams
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Payroll
- Pension Plans
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Private employers
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- United States v. Windsor
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Defamation
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee photographs
- 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
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Play or Pay
- posting requirements
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- severance pay
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- tax refund
- Telecommuting
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Crisis Management
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Public Sector Liability
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 28 posts in Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
An Employer's Guide to Intermittent FMLA Leave
Through the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), certain employees are entitled to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave under specific medical or family circumstances, such as parental leave or a serious health condition. In some cases, employees eligible under FMLA take their 12 weeks of leave all at once. However, FMLA does not require leave to be used in a single block. Employees with qualifying circumstances may take their allotted leave in smaller increments that amount to as much as 12 work weeks over a 12-month period—but this “intermittent leave” can cause numerous headaches for employers. It’s important for employers to understand how intermittent leave works and how to best handle its effects in the workplace. More >
Enforcement and Retaliation of New Paid Leave Provisions – Crucial Concerns for Employers
While the new paid sick leave and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) expansion law contains a small carrot for employers in the form of tax credits for those required to pay for sick leave and expanded FMLA leave, it also contains a couple of fairly substantial sticks. Accordingly, employers should carefully consider any adverse employment actions they take at this time with respect to employees who take leave. More >
FMLA Retaliation in a Cat's Paw
FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) retaliation law expanded in 2017 – about the size of a cat’s paw, which, in this instance, is pretty big. “Cat’s paw” here describes a situation where someone other than an employment decision-maker convinces (or dupes) the decision-maker to take an adverse employment action against another employee. (For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “cat’s paw” is derived from a fable wherein a monkey tricks a cat into pulling roasted chestnuts out of a fire for it to eat, burning the cat’s paws in the process. The phrase is used to describe situations where one person is unwittingly used by another for the other’s purposes.) When this is done with retaliatory intent, is the employer then liable under FMLA for retaliation? The answer, according to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (this federal circuit covers Kentucky), is “yes” in the case of Marshall v. Rawlings. More >
New FMLA Forms Address GINA Safe Harbor
The Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently revised and updated the template forms that the agency issues for use in Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) notice and certification. Some of these new forms have received substantial revision, and all have been approved through the end of May 2018. The most notable change, however, may be that certain new forms related to medical certification (WH-380-E, WH-380-F, WH-385 and WH-385-V) address Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) “safe harbor” language. More >
How Much Time Can New Parents Take Off?
Paid leave for new parents, both mothers and fathers, has been in the headlines as of late as the U.S. Department of Labor promotes its “Lead on Leave” initiative. The question for employers, however, is just how much time may an employee take off for the birth or adoption of a child. Luckily, the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) answers the question almost entirely by itself. More >
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 >
How Serious is “Serious” under the FMLA?
The Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) provides protections for eligible employees who must take time off of work to deal with serious medical conditions. These protections, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1), allow employees time away from work and prevent employers from taking adverse employment actions against the employee as a result of serious medical conditions. At issue, however, is the definition of “serious” – just how serious must a medical condition be to warrant FMLA protection? In the case of Dalton v. ManorCare, the Eight Circuit added yet another to a list of items that aren’t serious enough to trigger the protections of the statute. More >
What Employers Should Know about the FMLA and Same-Sex Marriages under New Department of Labor Rules
After the 2013 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, federal agencies have been moving to align federal policies and procedures with the holding of that case. The Court held, basically, that same-sex marriages performed in states where those marriages are legal are valid, legal marriages for purposes of federal law. To that end, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) promulgated a final rule on February 25th, 2015 that revised the regulatory definition of the word “spouse” to include same-sex spouses from legal marriages to eligible employees for purposes of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The final rule becomes effective on March 27th, 2015. 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 >
Making Sure Your FMLA Policy Covers the Basics
Too often, employers assume that their policies comply with the basic tenets of regulatory provisions and proceed to other details without regular, careful review. This complacency, however, is where mistakes multiply, which can result in costly outcomes. In the case of Tilley v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, for instance, the court reiterated that failure to review basic FMLA rules and train employees accordingly could lead to an unwelcome result. More >
