Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- 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
- Employee Benefits
- Human Resource Department
- OSHA
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- 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”)
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- 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
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Compliance
- copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Work for Hire
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Federal contractors
- Security Checks
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Creech v. Brown
- Lane v. Franks
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Cloud
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Non-exempt employees
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Northwestern
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- Crystalline Silica
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- "Ban-the-box"
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Jury duty
- Maternity Leave
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- At-will employment
- 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
- Cozen O’Connor v. Tobits
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Obergefell v. Kaish
- 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
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Online Account Protection
- Sequester
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- Employee Forms
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Litigation
- Play or Pay
- Record Retention
- severance pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- tax refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- United States v. Quality Stores
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee photographs
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- posting requirements
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Crisis Management
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Workplace Politics
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Criminal Background Checks
- Class Action Waivers
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 9 posts in Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Pregnancy Discrimination Claims after Young v. UPS
It was a difficult delivery, but the Supreme Court in Young v. UPS[1] gave birth to a new test in determining whether an employer has violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”)[2]. More >
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, Part II
On Monday, details about the case Young v. UPS were discussed. Young was a part-time UPS driver who, after becoming unable to lift heavy packages due to her pregnancy, was denied her request for light duty. She alleges that UPS violated the law by failing to provide her the same accommodations as it provided to nonpregnant employees with physical disabilities who were similar in their ability to work. After the District Court and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals both found for UPS, Young petitioned filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. UPS, however, responded to the petition with an argument that the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) could render the case moot. The actions that led to the suit occurred in 2006 – before the amendments to the ADA were made. 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 >
Employers Win In Recent 6th Circuit Pregnancy Wrongful Termination Claims
As has been addressed previously in this blog, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has placed an emphasis on pursuing complaints of pregnancy discrimination as announced in its Strategic Enforcement Plan (see the post here). Recently the EEOC and the plaintiffs’ bar have filed cases at an increased rate against employers who have allegedly discriminated against pregnant women in the workplace. It goes without saying that such suits can be costly to defend and to ultimately pay if they are successful. More >
EEOC’s Focus on Pregnancy Discrimination
Earlier this week, we gave you an overview of the issues that, according to a recent draft of its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”), the EEOC is likely to target in the coming years. One of the emerging issues highlighted in that draft relates to pregnancy discrimination, specifically, situations which force women into unpaid pregnancy leave after being denied accommodations routinely provided to similarly situated employees. In lock step with the EEOC’s express priorities, the following relevant cases have emerged over just the last few months: More >
Are Personal Emails Private in the Workplace?
Can companies monitor and read personal emails? While this is no longer a novel question, companies continue to struggle with finding ways to protect their ability to access and monitor employees’ email activity. A review of recent cases reminds us that while the answer is usually situational, the result almost always hinges on the strength and specificity of the company’s computer and email use policy. More >
Pregnancy Discrimination
In preparing for a recent mediation, I learned that that there has not been a verdict for a plaintiff presenting a pregnancy discrimination case in Kentucky for fifteen years. That, however, does not mean that the cause of action is dead. Employers should remain cognizant that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers from discriminating against female employees for “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”. In fact, since the Hall v. Nalco Co. decision was rendered by the 7th Circuit in 2008, Courts have consistently interpreted “related medical conditions” to include pre-pregnancy procedures such as in vitro fertilization procedures. Protecting yourself from a discrimination claim in this context may present unique difficulties as an employers’ institutional knowledge of an employee’s medical condition may depend on the degree to which an employee feels comfortable disclosing the reason for her medical treatment to her supervisor. Of course, employers who intend to take either an active or passive adverse employment action against a female employee must be prepared to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Employers should keep in mind that an adverse employment decision based upon a female’s medical condition, or absence from work due to an unspecified medical condition, could result in the first favorable verdict for a Plaintiff alleging pregnancy discrimination in recent memory.
