Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Wage and Hour
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Overtime Pay
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- Young v. UPS
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Compliance
- copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Work for Hire
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Amazon
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Security Checks
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Creech v. Brown
- Lane v. Franks
- Cloud
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Non-exempt employees
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Northwestern
- Whistleblower
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Crystalline Silica
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- 2013)
- Bullying
- Compensatory time off
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Jury duty
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Companionship services
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- NADSA Conference
- Private employers
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- COBRA
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- United States v. Windsor
- Defamation
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Freedom of Speech
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Reference checks
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Employee Hazards
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Sequester
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Employer Mandate
- FICA
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- severance pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- tax refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- United States v. Quality Stores
- Employee Arrests
- posting requirements
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Crisis Management
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- social privacy laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Workplace Politics
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
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 >
