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
- Workplace health
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- COVID-19
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Worker Misclassification
- FMLA Retaliation
- Non-exempt employees
- Wage and Hour
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- 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
- Employee Misconduct
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Law
- HIPAA
- Independent Contractors
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Telecommuting
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Training
- Federal Department of Labor
- Government employees
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Payroll
- At-will employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Litigation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Online Defamation
- OSHA
- Pension Plans
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Severance Pay
- 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 26 posts in Hiring and Firing.
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 >
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 >
Don’t Get Burned With Teens Working During Summer Months
Ah, summer. Crowded pools, yards in need of tending, restaurants overflowing with customers – all present the perfect work opportunity for teenagers. For employers, hiring a seasonal or temporary workforce of teenagers comes with a few extra things to keep in mind. The federal law controlling child labor is the Fair Labor Standards Act, but Kentucky also has its own set of child labor laws with which employers must comply. As the summer heats up, remember these things to avoid getting burned with legal troubles: More >
Have You Conducted a Mid-Year Performance Review?
As we find ourselves halfway through 2014, I suggest that employers pause to consider conducting a mid-year performance review. Many employers meet their annual review process with a certain amount of dread and, thus, doing it twice seems rather painful. There are, however, compelling reasons to conduct a bi-annual review for your workforce. Let’s consider a few of the positive things that come from this practice: More >
U.S. Supreme Court Gives Increased Protection to Government Employees
The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment. The case, Lane v. Franks, [1]centered on a public employee, Lane, who worked at an Alabama community college where he led the school’s program for at-risk youth. More >
Guidelines for Hiring Summer Interns
Summer is upon us. For employers, that means so is the prospect of hiring summer interns. Each year, clients contact McBrayer employment attorneys about the legality of their internship programs. Hiring interns gives employers access to highly motivated, educated young workers who bring a fresh perspective to the office and (sometimes) have little to no expectation of pay in return. It seems like a win-win situation, but in recent years, the practice of hiring unpaid interns has become increasingly scrutinized by the Department of Labor. In fact, there have been several high-profile cases wherein unpaid interns have sued employers (including Conde Nast Publications, Sirius XM Radio, and Warner Music Group), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which establishes minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements for non-exempt employees. 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 >
Curbing FMLA Abuse
The Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) permits eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of leave during a 12-month period if a serious health condition makes the employee unable to perform the functions of his or her position. When an employer suspects that an employee is abusing the FMLA leave, employers may feel caught in a classic Catch-22. They can ignore the abuse and operate with a reduced workforce, or subject themselves to an interference or defamation suit if they decide to challenge or confront the employee about the questionable leave. More >
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part II
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part II More >
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part I
A common administrative headache for employers is dealing with terminated employees who go on to seek unemployment benefits. While an employer has the right to challenge the award of unemployment benefits, choosing to do so requires careful consideration. The process can be time-consuming and may require a commitment of more resources than one would like. Additionally, challenging an award of unemployment benefits may serve to push a former employee into litigation that he or she may not have pursued otherwise. That being said, if an employer has good documentation regarding a termination and clear, uniformly enforced employee policies, challenging a claim for unemployment benefits can be successful. More >
