Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Temporary Leave
- IRS
- Treasury
- Paid Sick Leave
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Salary Theshold
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Wage and Hour
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Independent Contractors
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- OSHA
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- Overtime Pay
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- 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
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Young v. UPS
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Compliance
- copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Work for Hire
- 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
- 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
- "Ban-the-box"
- Crystalline Silica
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Senate Bill 157
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- Jury duty
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Private employers
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- At-will employment
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Giant Food LLC
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Reference checks
- SHRM
- United States v. Windsor
- Defamation
- Employee Hazards
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- Freedom of Speech
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Sequester
- 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
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- 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
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Crisis Management
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- social privacy laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Workplace Politics
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 5 posts in Unemployment Benefits.
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part II
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part II More >
Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part I
A common administrative headache for employers is dealing with terminated employees who go on to seek unemployment benefits. While an employer has the right to challenge the award of unemployment benefits, choosing to do so requires careful consideration. The process can be time-consuming and may require a commitment of more resources than one would like. Additionally, challenging an award of unemployment benefits may serve to push a former employee into litigation that he or she may not have pursued otherwise. That being said, if an employer has good documentation regarding a termination and clear, uniformly enforced employee policies, challenging a claim for unemployment benefits can be successful. More >
Severance Packages and Unemployment Benefits
As an employer, one of the most difficult parts of the job can be letting an employee go or eliminating their position. When the departure is an amicable one, many employers choose to provide a severance package. In some cases, an employment contract or union agreement may require severance pay no matter how the relationship ends. More >
CONSEQUENCES OF MISCLASSIFYING WORKERS AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
Over the past several years, more and more employers are attempting to cut costs by hiring individuals as independent contractors as opposed to employees. This trend, however, has caught the attention of the Federal Department of Labor, which this year has again increased its budget to “detect and deter” misclassification of workers as independent contractors. This budget also includes the addition of dozens of new full time employees dedicated to investigate possible violations resulting from misclassification. More >
Plan Ahead – The Lesson of Fighting Unemployment Benefit Claims
Few things are more frustrating for an employer than terminating an employee for cause due to violation of company policy, be it for failing a drug test or some form of misconduct, and then that employee being awarded unemployment benefits. We here at McBrayer PLLC find this result to be all too common, and then it is typically an uphill battle to overturn the award. In many instances, the problem lies not in the award itself, but in the lack of foresight and preparation which preceded the termination of the employee. If the first time the issue of unemployment benefits is addressed is post-termination, then the key moment to address the issue has likely been lost. More >
