KMK Law Management Rights Blog

A common provision in employment agreements may no longer be enforceable, at least for employers in Kentucky.

The new term of the Supreme Court began last Monday, October 2, and the first case up has the potential to affect millions of employers and employees across the country. The case, Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (which was consolidated with two other cases, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA) examines whether employment agreements requiring employers and employees to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration and waive class and collective proceedings are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

On Tuesday, the Seventh Circuit sitting en banc announced its decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, creating a circuit split and setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court battle over the scope of Title VII.

As anticipated, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime rules were issued on May 18, 2016. Effective December 1, 2016, these new regulations will impact all companies with salaried employees earning less than $47,476 annually. KMK will be offering training sessions to assist our clients in developing effective strategies to implement the new overtime rules. 

One of the most common requests that I receive as an employment attorney is to review severance offers.  I’ve had these kinds of requests from friends, relatives, acquaintances and (on rare occasions) clients and I seldom turn them down. I have probably handled hundreds of reductions in force for various corporate clients so I like to see how others handle them.  In the past month, I have reviewed two severances packages and both failed to follow the requirements of the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”).  I was not at all surprised.  If I had to guess, I would say that over 50% of the severance offers I’ve reviewed over the years are not in compliance with the OWBPA.     

On December 24, 2015, the NLRB ruled that an employer’s policy prohibiting employees from recording images or verbal exchanges in the workplace was unlawful.    

I recently wrote about OSHA’s plan to develop and distribute information to ensure transgender employees have safe and adequate access to workplace restrooms.  This week, OSHA issued “Best Practices - A Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers,” with the stated Core Principle that “[a]ll employees, including transgender employees, should have access to restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.”  The OSHA Guide notes the following:

When I think of Abercrombie & Fitch, which is an infrequent occurrence, I think of soft core porn catalogues and over-priced t-shirts; now, I can add religious discrimination to the list.  The Supreme Court ruled this week against Abercrombie & Fitch for refusing to hire a young Muslim because she wore a hijab, which violated the store’s “look policy” for salespersons. 

Unless you’ve been out of the country or purposely avoiding news about sports, you’ve probably heard a lot about “Deflategate” and the punishment handed down by the National Football League (NFL) against the New England Patriots and star quarterback Tom Brady.  The short version of the scandal is that during the AFC Championship game on January 18, 2015, some of the New England Patriots’ game footballs were discovered to be underinflated, which could provide a competitive advantage to a quarterback by making them easier to grip. 

The widely discussed Bruce Jenner interview has been a media sensation but for employers there are more important recent stories on transgender issues in the workplace. Last month, the EEOC issued a ruling that Title VII was violated by the Army when it refused to allow a transgender, male-to-female, civilian employee to use the women’s common restroom.