Posts

Sixth Circuit: Work Restrictions Do Not Equate to a Disability Under the ADA

APPLIES TO

All Employers with MI, KY, OH, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 7, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., the Sixth Circuit stated that just because an employee has physical work restrictions does not equate to being “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A person is disabled under the ADA if they have a (1) “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” (2) “a record of such impairment,” or (3) is “regarded as having such an impairment.”

Read more

Kentucky: New Pregnancy Accommodation Law Coming Soon

APPLIES TO

All Employers with 15 or more KY Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 27, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Earlier this year, the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Pregnant Workers Act (the Act), building on federal anti-discrimination protections for pregnant workers and adding new requirements for accommodations.  Under the Act, covered employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations with regard to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Read more

May Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. California: Registered Fictitious Business Names May Be Listed on Pay Stubs
  2. Indiana: Leaving Work to Voluntarily Testify is Not Protected
  3. Kentucky: Attorneys Must Represent Employers at Unemployment Proceedings
  4. New York, NY: Bans Pre-Employment Marijuana Testing in 2020
  5. New York, NY: Prohibits Discrimination Based on Employee Sexual and Reproductive Health Decisions
  6. Westchester County, NY: Updated Guidance Issued on Paid Sick Leave

Read more

Kentucky: Mandatory Arbitration is Again Permissible

APPLIES TO

All Employers with KY Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 25, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In September 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court stated that mandatory arbitration agreements violate state law. Recently, the Kentucky legislature enacted SB 7 to change that ruling. The Bill specifically states that employers may require an employee or applicant to execute an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. The arbitration agreement must state a reasonable location for the arbitration, apply to both parties, ensure procedural fairness, provide at least one channel for pursuing a legal claim (e.g., individual arbitration), and allow an arbitrator to award the same type of relief as would be available through a court of law.

The Bill applies prospectively and retroactively so as to eliminate the effects of the prior court case. Notably, this permission for mandatory arbitration agreements does not apply to collective bargaining agreements.

Action Items

  1. Have arbitration agreements reviewed by legal counsel for compliance with the new law.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2019 ManagEase

Sixth Circuit: Off-Duty Law Enforcement Misclassified as Independent Contractors

APPLIES TO

All Employers of KY, MI, OH, or TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 12, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Acosta v. Off Duty Policy Services, Inc., the Sixth Circuit applied the six-factor “economic reality” test to determine whether off-duty officers were misclassified as independent contractors for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). There, the employer provided private security services using off-duty, sworn police officers, as well as nonsworn workers. The workers were allowed to accept or reject work assignments, were provided basic equipment, but had to supply their own vehicles and uniforms. The sworn officers typically wore their officer uniforms and used their patrol vehicles, while the nonsworn workers had to use their own police-style vehicle.

Read more

Kentucky: State Supreme Court Bars Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

APPLIES TO

All Employers with KY Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 27, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Northern Kentucky Area Development Dist. v. Snyder, the Kentucky Supreme Court stated that mandatory arbitration agreements violate KRS § 336.700; moreover, the law prohibits employers from refusing to hire or terminating employees on the condition that they waive any existing rights they would otherwise have against the employer. There, an employee claimed she was terminated in violation of the state’s Whistleblower Act. Because she signed a mandatory arbitration agreement, the employer unsuccessfully sought to enforce it. As a result, all employers should immediately have their arbitration agreements reviewed, updated, and re-signed by current employees, as applicable.

Action Items

  1. Have arbitration agreements updated consistent with this new ruling and confer with legal counsel on having current employees resign the agreement.
  2. Update offer letters to exclude condition of employment based on executing an arbitration agreement.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2018 ManagEase

Sixth Circuit: Full-Time Work is Not an Essential Job Function Under the ADA

APPLIES TO

Employers with KY, MI, OH, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 17, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Hostettler v. College of Wooster, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal recently determined that an employer could not make full-time work an essential function of a job so as to justify failing to accommodate an employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There, the employee suffered from post-partum depression and, based on her physician’s instruction, obtained approval to work part-time. However, her supervisor felt that the employee’s part-time work schedule burdened others in the department. When the employee submitted an updated medical certification requiring continued part-time employment, the supervisor terminated her based on her inability to return full-time.

Sixth Circuit: Do Volunteers Have an Expectation of Compensation?

APPLIES TO

All Employers with KY, MI, OH, TN Volunteers

EFFECTIVE

April 16, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, the Sixth Circuit recently clarified the definition of a volunteer. There, a buffet restaurant, a for-profit corporation operated by Grace Cathedral, used volunteers to service patrons in addition to regular employees. The faith leader at Grace Cathedral told church members that God was calling on them to volunteer at the buffet, and that failing to do so was tantamount to a sin under the church’s doctrine. As a result of the church’s strategies, many members did volunteer. Employees and volunteers performed the same restaurant-related tasks; however, volunteers were not paid for their time.

Sixth Circuit: Transgender and Transitioning Status Discrimination Prohibited Under Title VII

APPLIES TO

Employers with MI, OH, KY, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 7, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On March 7, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appeals court to state that transgender and transitioning employees are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on specific protected categories.  Further, the circuit court stated that “sincerely held religious beliefs” do not shield employers from Title VII discrimination claims.