Employers sometimes still grapple with the notion of what conduct supports a claim of a hostile work environment. The easy answer is generally the negative atmosphere must be sufficiently severe and pervasive, but it also must rise to the level of actual harassment of an employee or group of employees on the basis of a protected characteristic. In other words, negative workplace interactions alone aren’t enough to give rise to a hostile work environment claim without more. Recent decisions underscore this distinction enough to give employers at least a little relief over the kinds of employee conflicts that occur on a daily basis.

Employers expecting good news from a largely pro-employer Supreme Court have just been dealt an unexpected headache. In a rare unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court opened the door a little further to claims of “reverse” discrimination in the case of Ames V. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Court removed the requirement that plaintiffs claiming reverse discrimination must prove their claims with additional background circumstances that were not required for a traditional discrimination claim. 

For nearly 50 years, the common test of religious accommodation from the Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. case was that, if a religious accommodation required more than a de minimis cost, it was asking too much of an employer under Title VII. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court of the United States  decided that this standard needs a reset, and employers may be in for a few changes.

For more on this subject, view our webinar, Myths, Masks, and Mandates: More Advice for the Continuing Workplace Challenges of COVID-19.

For more on this subject, view our webinar, Myths, Masks, and Mandates: More Advice for the Continuing Workplace Challenges of COVID-19.

Kentucky employment law generally recognizes that most employment is “at-will” – meaning, employees serve at the pleasure of the employer, and termination of an employee does not require “just cause.” There are several circumstances, however, where laws and other factors prohibit employers from terminating an employee without a well-documented showing of cause. Employers should be aware of the circumstances under which they may not terminate an employee without just cause.

The Sixth Circuit (encompassing Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee and Ohio) recently sent a strong message that baseless suits against employers will not survive summary judgment. The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. et al., No. 13-3408 (6th Cir., Apr. 9, 2014), involved the use of credit checks in hiring decisions.

On Monday, it was discussed that it is typically acceptable to offer different maternity leave benefits for employees at separate employer locations (such as a corporate office versus store locations). Further, it was noted that it is generally acceptable to have varying policies amongst employees, so far as the policies are applied within the parameters of the law (i.e., not discriminatory).

As summer draws to an end, flu season is lurking right around the corner. Last year’s flu season was especially hard-hitting. Many employers have taken proactive steps in recent years to protect their workforce by offering free flu vaccines or encouraging employees to get one on their own. But, can employers go one step further and require their at-will employees to receive flu shots?

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.