Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- 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
- Wage and Hour
- 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
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- copyright
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Intellectual Property
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Creech v. Brown
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Cloud
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- 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”)
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- KYSHRM 2013
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Reference checks
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Defamation
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- 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
- Online Account Protection
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- posting requirements
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- severance pay
- Social Media Ownership
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- tax refund
- Telecommuting
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Crisis Management
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- social privacy laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Criminal Background Checks
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Salary Threshold
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
Showing 5 posts in Maternity Leave.
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 >
Updated & Enhanced EEOC Enforcement Guidance – What Does it Mean for Employers and Pregnant Employees?
In 2013 alone, 5,342 discrimination claims were filed alleging pregnancy discrimination. The result – employers paid out over $17 million in monetary benefits last year. In fact, the EEOC’s statistics do not include monetary benefits obtained through litigation; thus, employers likely paid out a significant amount more than $17 million. To avoid adding to this figure, employers must pay particular attention to pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, be mindful of what is required to comply with federal and state law, and take precautions to ensure that no discriminatory practices exist in the workplace. More >
US Supreme Court Will Review Important Case Affecting Pregnant Workers
The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to review Young v. UPS, a decision that will determine whether and to what extent an employer must provide pregnant employees with work accommodations, such as light duty, that are given to other workers with disabilities. More >
Varying Maternity Leave Policies, cont.
On Monday, it was discussed that it is typically acceptable to offer different maternity leave benefits for employees at separate employer locations (such as a corporate office versus store locations). Further, it was noted that it is generally acceptable to have varying policies amongst employees, so far as the policies are applied within the parameters of the law (i.e., not discriminatory). More >
Varying Maternity Leave Policies
Recently, our firm was asked if it were permissible for a company to have separate maternity policies for a corporate office from that of a store location. The concern was of course that a claim of discrimination would be made if different policies were used, and it was right for the question to be asked. However, what may be surprising is that there is no requirement that employees at different company locations all be offered the same benefits. In fact, it is common for employees in a corporate office to receive different employment packages than those at other locations, such as the company’s retail store or restaurant. In fact, an employer does not have to have the same policies for all employees in the same location in many instances. The key is that a policy not have an adverse impact on any protected groups or result in unintentional discrimination. More >
