Contrary to what many employees think, paid time off (“PTO”) is not a protected right. Instead, it is a matter of agreement between an employer and employee. There are times when employees may prefer to take unpaid leave so that they can accrue their PTO, but employers can determine whether this practice is permissible. It is lawful for employers to require that employees exhaust unused PTO time before taking unpaid time away from work.

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.

At this time of the year when the flu, strep throat and other illnesses are making their way through our children, friends and society in general, it is good for employers to be mindful of their options, but more importantly to plan ahead for employees who come to work visibly ill.  While many people want to “tough it out” through an illness, the reality is that by toughing it out an employee may in fact be compromising the health of others and decreasing the productivity of an entire workplace.  The time to ask what to do about such an employee is not when the employee sits down at his/her desk at the start of the work day or takes his/her place on the assembly line.  Rather, the best time to consider how to handle these inevitable situations is well before they occur.

In preparing for a recent mediation, I learned that that there has not been a verdict for a plaintiff presenting a pregnancy discrimination case in Kentucky for fifteen years.  That, however, does not mean that the cause of action is dead.  Employers should remain cognizant that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers from discriminating against female employees for “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”. In fact, since the Hall v. Nalco Co. decision was rendered by the 7^th Circuit in 2008, Courts have consistently interpreted “related medical conditions” to include pre-pregnancy procedures such as in vitro fertilization procedures. Protecting yourself from a discrimination claim in this context may present unique difficulties as an employers’ institutional knowledge of an employee’s medical condition may depend on the degree to which an employee feels comfortable disclosing the reason for her medical treatment to her supervisor.  Of course, employers who intend to take either an active or passive adverse employment action against a female employee must be prepared to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.  Employers should keep in mind that an adverse employment decision based upon a female’s medical condition, or absence from work due to an unspecified medical condition, could result in the first favorable verdict for a Plaintiff alleging pregnancy discrimination in recent memory.