Lobbying Affiliate: MML&K Government Solutions
{ Banner Image }

Employment Law Blog

When It Comes To Employment Issues, Choose A Firm That Thinks Outside the Cubicle.

Contact Us

* Indicates a required field.

Stay Connected

RSSSubscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedIn
Facebook

Archives

Categories

McBrayer Blogs

Showing 5 posts in Maternity Leave.

blogs-Employment-Law-Blog,updated-enhanced-eeoc-enforcement-guidance-what-does-it-mean-for-employers-and-pregnant-employees

November 25, 2014
Posted In EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Human Resource Department, Maternity Leave, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Young v. UPS

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?

November 24, 2014
Posted In EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employee Hazards, Employment Law, Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA"), Human Resource Department, Job Requirement, Maternity Leave, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Young v. UPS

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

By Cynthia L. Effinger on July 14, 2014
Posted In Adverse Employment Action, Employee Benefits, Employment Law, Hiring and Firing, Litigation, Maternity Leave, Pregnancy Discrimination Act

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.

October 30, 2013
Posted In Employee Benefits, Employment Discrimination Laws, Employment Law, Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Human Resource Department, Maternity Leave

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

October 28, 2013
Posted In Employee Benefits, Employment Law, Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Maternity Leave

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 >

Lexington, KYLouisville, KYFrankfort, KY: MML&K Government SolutionsWashington, D.C.