Main Menu
Posts in Labor and Employment.

On September 27, 2018, in Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Danielle Snyder, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that an employer is prohibited from requiring an employee to enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment within the state. As a result of Snyder, Kentucky became the only state in the nation to prohibit employers from terminating or refusing to hire an individual who would not agree to sign an arbitration agreement. (Jacqueline Pitts, Senate passes bill clarifying Kentucky’s policies on arbitration agreement, KY CHAMBER BOTTOM LINE, (Feb. 21, 2019)).

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a highly anticipated ruling clarifying that employers can require employees to sign class action arbitration waivers. It may not sound like a big deal, but employers should recognize that it is.

Adding to the growing list of courts ruling on immigration cases this month, the Sixth Circuit recently vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision to deny a woman’s motion to reopen her immigration proceedings. In a unanimous opinion, Judge John Bush held that the Board of Immigration Appeals had abused its discretion by discrediting evidence presented by the woman that she would be singled out for persecution and that circumstances in her native country had changed.  The decision sheds lights on how the Sixth Circuit intends to review similar cases in the future and provides a roadmap for practitioners and their clients attempting to ascertain which information may help or hurt them during their own immigration proceedings. 

On August 31, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an Order invalidating the Final Rule of the Department of Labor (DOL) finding that it exceeded the DOL’s authority by failing to implement Congress’s intent under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Many employers offer wellness programs with varying degrees of incentives in order to have as many employees participate as possible. There has been an inherent tension between the laudable goals underlying wellness programs and two statutes that protect certain rights that employees have under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

On July 6, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest circuit to weigh in on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court had previously issued a ruling in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp, et. al., which held that Title VII did not protect employees from sexual orientation discrimination. The plaintiff petitioned the court for a rehearing; her petition was denied on July 6. Denying the request for a rehearing renders the earlier decision binding, so the Eleventh Circuit interprets Title VII to not protect employees from sexual orientation discrimination. The denial for a rehearing also inches the issue closer to Supreme Court review.

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) recently reinstated the Wage and Hour Division opinion letter process, which ended about seven years ago. DOL opinion letters allow either employers or employees to ask the DOL whether specific practices comply with laws under its jurisdiction.

On June 7, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued the following press release that withdrew previously issued “informal guidance” regarding independent contractors and joint employment:

On April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit court handed down an en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech College, South Bend, making it the first federal appellate court in the United States to decide that the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extend to workers on the basis of sexual orientation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from job ...

What is “Prevailing Wage Law”?

Kentucky’s prevailing wage law currently requires that contractors on public works projects estimated to cost more than $250,000 pay wages equal to or greater than the wages of similar workers in the locality where the project is being built. Effectively, the law forces contractors, union and non-union alike, to pay wages at the local union scale.

RSS RSS Feed

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Categories

Contributors

Archives

Back to Page