Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- SCOTUS
- Overtime
- Overtime Rule
- Federal Trade Commission
- FTC
- Service Animals
- Remote Work
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Minors
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- COVID-19
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Worker Misclassification
- FMLA Retaliation
- Non-exempt employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- 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
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Adverse Employment Action
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- EEOC
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Law
- HIPAA
- Independent Contractors
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Employee Training
- At-will employment
- Criminal Background Checks
- Federal Department of Labor
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Government employees
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Payroll
- Severance Pay
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Litigation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Online Defamation
- OSHA
- Pension Plans
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Crisis Management
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Employee Contracts
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Hiring and Firing
- Internet & Media Law
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
Showing 10 posts in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Supreme Court Remodels Title VII Religious Accommodations in Groff v. DeJoy
For nearly 50 years, the common test of religious accommodation from the Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. case was that, if a religious accommodation required more than a de minimis cost, it was asking too much of an employer under Title VII. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that this standard needs a reset, and employers may be in for a few changes. 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 >
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 >
Employment at Will Comes with Many Exceptions
Kentucky employment law generally recognizes that most employment is “at-will” – meaning, employees serve at the pleasure of the employer, and termination of an employee does not require “just cause.” There are several circumstances, however, where laws and other factors prohibit employers from terminating an employee without a well-documented showing of cause. Employers should be aware of the circumstances under which they may not terminate an employee without just cause. More >
The Christmas Conundrum, continued
On Monday we discussed the basic framework for providing employees with days off during recognized religious holidays. A related issue commonly presented during the holiday season is whether employees must be paid for their time off. More >
The Christmas Conundrum
The holidays are a joyous time of year, but many employers face the season with a certain sense of trepidation as their employees inevitably request time off work. As the holiday season kicks into full gear, now is a good time for employers to refresh themselves on basic guidelines for granting and denying employees’ vacation requests. More >
Victories for Employers at the Supreme Court Level
The United States Supreme Court just issued two very important employment-related rulings and both of the decisions are big wins for employers. Today, let’s take a look at the first case: Vance v. Ball State University (decided June 24, 2013), which centered on employers’ liability for workplace harassment. More >
