KMK Law Management Rights Blog

This Wednesday, December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Young v. UPS, No. 12-1226, on appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.  The Young case has received significant attention because it asks the Court to directly address the question of what, if any, accommodation is required for a pregnant worker with work limitations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1978, where the employer provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations, such as those affected by on-the-job injuries or a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.   

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued a final rule on September 11, 2014, requiring employers to notify OSHA when an employee is killed on the job or suffers a work-related hospitalization, amputation or loss of an eye. The rule will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2015.  The rule also updates the list of employers partially exempt from OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements.

Companies with Kentucky employees need to review their non-competition agreements. 

Two  federal courts recently dealt with thorny issues stemming from defendant employers’ use of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. These rulings should be heeded by those of us who develop or revise electronic data review protocols, particularly any  guidance for determining when to withhold documents under the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Stressing that technology has made telecommuting easier, the Sixth Circuit yesterday revived the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's claims that Ford Motor Co. failed to accommodate a worker with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) by refusing her request to work from home most days. 

While the rest of us have been cheering on our favorite teams or sulking due to our busted March Madness brackets, Northwestern University has been fighting a different battle before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).  On March 26, 2014, a regional director for the NLRB ruled that football players at Northwestern qualify as “employees” and have the right to unionize, paving the way for athletes at private educational institutions throughout the country to unionize. 

As most any litigation practitioner knows, Facebook can be GOLD.  Pictures really are worth 1,000 words. . . or more.  That million dollar picture of a plaintiff who has claimed debilitating emotional distress:  on a boat, raising a beer with friends, and posted smack in the middle of the period of time that plaintiff claims was riddled with “emotional distress.”  GOLD.  And it happens with regularity.  Facebook, as with other social media, is a medium of the moment – individuals post (and get tagged) in pictures posted during the adrenaline-infused, alcohol-fogged moments of “good times.”  And it is exactly these moments – moments easily forgotten by Plaintiffs asking a judge or jury for emotional distress damages – that are crucial to developing a clear picture of emotional distress. 

The amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act quietly went into effect as of October 21, 2013.  Congress passed the Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act (“Act”) in late-2011 as part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (“TAAEA”). While the TAAEA is primarily concerned with extending retraining assistance for employees displaced by foreign workers, the Act requires states to incorporate provisions into their own Unemployment Insurance laws to (1) enhance penalties for fraudulent Unemployment Insurance claimants; (2) revise the timing of "new hire" reports; and (3) impose new obligations on employers (and their agents) with respect to responding to Unemployment Insurance claim notices. 

Determining how to reasonably accommodate an employee with a disability can be difficult for employers.  The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kempter v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., et al. affirms common-sense law – namely, that in reasonably accommodating a disabled employee, employers are not required to convert temporary light-duty work into a full-time position, reassign a disabled employee to a position he/she is not qualified for, or which would displace another employee’s rights, or create a new position. 

As most employers are aware, the definition of what constitutes a “disability” for purposes of providing a reasonable workplace accommodation was broadened significantly with the enactment of the Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).