In a development that should make every horse operation in Kentucky stand up and take notice, trainer Chad Brown will pay $1.6 million to cover back wages, liquidated damages and civil penalties for what the Department of Labor (“DOL”) considers to be willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the H-2B non-immigrant visa program.

In the day-to-day rush of business, it’s easy to overlook key employment issues, but they have a way of turning into true headaches for HR professionals. Below are five HR matters that have a habit of becoming bigger problems for employers, and if you aren’t paying attention to them, you may be putting the business at serious risk.

FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) retaliation law expanded in 2017 – about the size of a cat’s paw, which, in this instance, is pretty big. “Cat’s paw” here describes a situation where someone other than an employment decision-maker convinces (or dupes) the decision-maker to take an adverse employment action against another employee. (For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “cat’s paw” is derived from a fable wherein a monkey tricks a cat into pulling roasted chestnuts out of a fire for it to eat, burning the cat’s paws in the process. The phrase is used to describe situations where one person is unwittingly used by another for the other’s purposes.) When this is done with retaliatory intent, is the employer then liable under FMLA for retaliation? The answer, according to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (this federal circuit covers Kentucky), is “yes” in the case of Marshall v. Rawlings.

The weather outside is terrible, and you want to close down your business for the duration. Can you cancel a work day or send your employees home early without pay for the duration of the closure? The answer is a bit complicated, and it depends on each employee’s classification as non-exempt or exempt where the overtime rules are concerned.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued the long-awaited Final Rule on overtime exemptions on Wednesday, May 18, 2016, providing hard numbers and a plan for incremental increases to the “white collar” salary exemption.

There are ways of gaining a tactical advantage in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) litigation, but sleeping on one’s rights in such a circumstance is not one of them. NPC International, Inc., a Pizza Hut franchisee, learned this the hard way in the Sixth Circuit in August. If the case of Skylar Gunn v. NPC International proves anything, it proves that courts will frown upon employers gaming the legal system to the detriment of employees bringing claims.

Sexual harassment claims can quickly become a nightmare for employers, but so many aspects of the nightmare are caused in part by the employer’s own actions. The employer has opportunities to mitigate the damage in two key areas – the sexual harassment policy itself before the alleged harassment incident and the investigation that takes place afterword. This post will look at mistakes made in these two particular areas that can hurt employers and lead to potentially costly damages.

On March 18^th, National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Richard F. Griffin, Jr., issued a report[1] (“the Report”) concerning employer rules and employee handbooks in light of recent employer rule cases. Most of the violations found in these cases occurred under the first prong of the two-prong the test in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia,[2] which looks to whether an employer rule explicitly restricts protected activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Report used these cases as a guide to provide clear examples of both illegal rules and their legal counterparts, giving employers a valuable tool in evaluating employee handbooks and workplace rules.

Earlier this year, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ holding in Creech, Inc. v. Brown, and held, in a landmark decision, that continued employment, standing alone, is no longer sufficient consideration to justify or support enforcement of a non-compete agreement. This reverses prior precedent that employer-employee agreements may be executed in exchange for merely retaining one’s job. While the case has an intricate and complex set of facts, this article focuses on the consideration requirement only, as the Kentucky Supreme Court chose not to address any other issues.