On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, declared unconstitutional Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which had prohibited the federal government from acknowledging marriages between same-sex couples. At the time of the ruling, same-sex marriages were recognized in 12 states and the District of Columbia. The decision does not require states to recognize same-sex marriages; Kentucky is among the states that do not. However, that does not mean that Kentuckians, specifically Kentucky employers, are insulated from the effects of this decision.

Earlier this week, I discussed the importance of tailoring non-compete agreements to ensure enforceability and provided some factors to consider when drafting. Below are four more factors that should help you create a strong non-compete agreement.

Perhaps you consider your non-compete agreement just one form in a stack of many? When it is time to use it there is not much to the process: you retrieve it from the HR office, briefly discuss it with the employee, and he willingly signs it. But such a practice is a perilous one because non-compete agreements are not meant to be “one-size-fits-all.” Rather, they should be thoughtfully tweaked to each specific employee and situation. By relying on boilerplate language and fill-in-the-blank forms, you are risking the chance that a court will find your agreement unenforceable.

Employers frequently utilize recognition programs as a way of rewarding employees for a job well done and boosting office morale.  “Employee of the Month” programs (“EMP”), however, can sometimes have the opposite effect and can actually become liability traps for employers if not run fairly.

Thorough research during an employer’s hiring phase can prevent undesirable employees from becoming part of a workforce. There is no better way to get an accurate assessment of job applicants than by speaking with people who have actually worked with them. Before picking up the phone, however, potential employers should keep a few things in mind:

Social media is a wonderful tool for businesses. In fact, in today’s Internet-reliant society, it is quickly becoming a necessity.

Some business assets are easy to spot: a company car or fax machine, for example. Others are intangible, like a bank account or line of credit.

LinkedIn is touted as the “World’s Largest Professional Network.” A far cry from more personal social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, LinkedIn keeps the emphasis on people’s employment and their professional connections. Consider it like a networking event, only online. Unlike in-person networking, though, LinkedIn enables people to make connections with anyone, anywhere.

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court, in the second big win for employers, clarified what standard employees must meet to successfully pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No longer will employees be able to prevail on retaliation claims just by demonstrating that retaliation was a “motivating factor” in an employer’s adverse employment action towards the employee.

The United States Supreme Court just issued two very important employment-related rulings and both of the decisions are big wins for employers. Today, let’s take a look at the first case: Vance v. Ball State University (decided June 24, 2013), which centered on employers’ liability for workplace harassment.