Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- SCOTUS
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Work from Home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Adverse Employment Action
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Non-exempt employees
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Northwestern
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- At-will employment
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- KYSHRM 2013
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Play or Pay
- Private employers
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- Tax Refund
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Crisis Management
- Employee Arrests
- Employee photographs
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Telecommuting
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
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 >
Don’t Get Burned With Teens Working During Summer Months
Ah, summer. Crowded pools, yards in need of tending, restaurants overflowing with customers – all present the perfect work opportunity for teenagers. For employers, hiring a seasonal or temporary workforce of teenagers comes with a few extra things to keep in mind. The federal law controlling child labor is the Fair Labor Standards Act, but Kentucky also has its own set of child labor laws with which employers must comply. As the summer heats up, remember these things to avoid getting burned with legal troubles: More >
DOL Proposes New Meaning for “Spouse” for FMLA Purposes
On June 20, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposed regulations to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act’s (“FMLA”) definition of “spouse.” Current FMLA regulations define a spouse as “a husband or wife defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the state where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized.” (emphasis added). The DOL is proposing to move from a “state of residence” rule to a rule based on the “place of celebration” (i.e., where the marriage was entered into). The proposed definition specifically includes same-sex marriages and reads as follows: More >
Have You Conducted a Mid-Year Performance Review?
As we find ourselves halfway through 2014, I suggest that employers pause to consider conducting a mid-year performance review. Many employers meet their annual review process with a certain amount of dread and, thus, doing it twice seems rather painful. There are, however, compelling reasons to conduct a bi-annual review for your workforce. Let’s consider a few of the positive things that come from this practice: More >
U.S. Supreme Court Gives Increased Protection to Government Employees
The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment. The case, Lane v. Franks, [1]centered on a public employee, Lane, who worked at an Alabama community college where he led the school’s program for at-risk youth. More >
An Important New Decision Affects Non-Compete Agreements in Kentucky
The Kentucky Supreme Court recently reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and declared that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-competition agreement. In the course of reaching its decision, the Court clarified prior case law dealing with the issue of whether non-competition agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this post focuses on the consideration requirement only. More >
NLRB Decision Limits Employer’s Off-Duty Policy, Part II
Earlier this week, we provided information relative to the NLRB’s decision in Piedmont Gardens, 360 NLRB No. 100 (2014).The issue in the case was the employer’s ability to regulate off-duty employee access to the property, a nursing home. The company handbook contained a provision that generally prohibited off-duty access, unless such access was previously authorized by a supervisor. The NLRB found the “unless previously authorized” caveat to be unlawful because it gave supervisors an unlimited scope in determining when and why employees could access the building. More >
NLRB Decision Limits Employer’s Off-Duty Policy
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a decision in Piedmont Gardens, 260 NLRB NO. 100 (2014) regarding the legality of an employer’s off-duty access policy. Piedmont Gardens is a nursing home. Many employers, especially those in health care or other highly-regulated industries, have policies that prohibit against employees lingering around the job site when not working. Off-duty employees can not only be a disruption to the business and create security risks, but can also increase an employer’s liability. After the newest NLRB decision on the issue, however, employers should review their policies to ensure that they do not run afoul of federal law. More >
JOIN US FOR A FREE EMPLOYMENT LAW SEMINAR!
Lessons in Workplace Liability Seminar More >
