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")
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- 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)
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- Young v. UPS
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Uncategorized
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- copyright
- EEOC
- Intellectual Property
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Volunteer
- 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
- Federal contractors
- Security Checks
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Lane v. Franks
- Creech v. Brown
- 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
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- 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”)
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Reference checks
- United States v. Windsor
- Defamation
- Endorsements
- Freedom of Speech
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Employee Hazards
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Play or Pay
- Sequester
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- FICA
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- posting requirements
- 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
- 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
- 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 17 posts in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
EEOC Issues Fact Sheet on Transgender Restroom Access
On Monday, May 2nd, 2016, the EEOC issued a fact sheet entitled “Fact Sheet: Bathroom Access Rights for Transgender Employees Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The fact sheet comports with the agency’s stance that Title VII protects gender identity under the prohibitions on discrimination based on sex and serves as a reminder to employers that federal law – and the EEOC’s interpretation of it – trumps state law on this issue, despite recent attention-grabbing media headlines. More >
EEOC: Title VII Prohibits Employment Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges struck down restrictions on marriage by same-sex couples, but it did not address other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, such as in employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, however, did not wait for a ruling from the high court, instead ruling on its own that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in an employment context on the basis of sexual orientation. This decision, Baldwin v. Foxx,[1] broadens Title VII protections considerably, although it remains to be seen if the high court agrees with the EEOC interpretation. More >
The Obergefell Decision and Employers
The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges significantly altered the legal landscape with respect to same-sex marriages, finding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires all states to both license in-state same-sex marriages and recognize valid same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. The Court did not, however, go so far as to reach issues such as discrimination in employment or public accommodation. So, while legal same-sex marriage is the law of the land, those newly-married couples may face legal uncertainty when it comes to discrimination in public accommodations or their place of employment, unless contravening state law applies. That said, there are still several ways that the Obergefell decision and its counterpart, United States v. Windsor, will affect employers and employees. More >
What Employers Need to Know about Religious Discrimination after EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch
It’s rather fitting that the Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores turns on the idea of one’s belief; it is, after all, a decision about religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The belief at issue, however, is not the belief of the claimant of religious discrimination, but rather the belief of the employer. More >
It Takes Two (Racial Slurs to Support a Claim of Harassment, That Is)
Before we begin the analysis of the recent Fourth Circuit opinion in Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau, let’s take a moment to clear something up: When asking how many times an employee may permissibly hurl a racial slur at another employee, can we all agree that the answer is none? Employers, we beseech you – do not, under any circumstances, allow your employees to berate any other employees with racial slurs. It may not necessarily rise to actionable levels under Title VII, but it is just atrocious and unacceptable behavior (and, as the court in this case noted, it CAN rise to actionable levels under Title VII). More >
A Title VII Transition?: Protections for Transgender Persons in the Workplace
Three years ago, the EEOC issued an opinion which held, for the first time, that discrimination against transgender persons based on gender identity is impermissible sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Holder (Apr. 20, 2012). Last month, the EEOC revisited discrimination against transgender persons and released a decision that sheds some light on how the practical applications of this finding may affect employers, holding that certain bathroom restrictions for a transgender employee constituted discrimination. See Lusardi v. McHugh (Apr. 1, 2015). More >
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 >
Sexual Harassment Mistakes Employers Make
Sexual harassment claims can quickly become a nightmare for employers, but so many aspects of the nightmare are caused in part by the employer’s own actions. The employer has opportunities to mitigate the damage in two key areas – the sexual harassment policy itself before the alleged harassment incident and the investigation that takes place afterword. This post will look at mistakes made in these two particular areas that can hurt employers and lead to potentially costly damages. More >
Employers – Don’t Be a Victim of Suspicious Timing
Where there’s smoke, there may be fire – at least, that appears to be a key takeaway from the Seventh Circuit case of Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries. The holding in this case is predicated on the notion that suspicious timing in an adverse employment action can give rise to a claim of retaliation under Title VII in absence of other solid evidence. More >
Nuns, Firefighters and Title VII: Are Volunteers Eligible for Protection?
Volunteerism is a staple of American life. According to the Corporation for National and Community Service, 62.6 million Americans volunteered nearly 7.7 million hours in 2013, adding up to an estimated value of $173 billion. Organizations such as the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and Habitat for Humanity depend on volunteers to serve the communities in which they live. But even beyond not-for-profit charitable organizations, for-profit businesses routinely open their doors to students and others who are willing to file, prepare mailings, or shred documents in exchange for some experience to put on their resume. More >
