On April 17, 2020, Governor Ned Lamont issued Executive Order 7BB requiring state residents “who [are] unable to or [do] not maintain a safe social distance of approximately six feet from every other person” in a public place to “cover their mouth and nose with a mask or cloth face-covering.”
On April 7, 2020, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont issued Executive Order No. 7V. It is the governor’s most recent executive order designed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
On May 28, 2019, Governor Ned Lamont signed House Bill No. 5004 The bill, entitled “An Act Increasing the Minimum Fair Wage,” increases Connecticut’s minimum wage to $15.00 an hour over the next approximately four years.
On March 6, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, eliminating any uncertainty concerning whether an employee can assert a hostile work environment claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
On January 8, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued an opinion and order granting summary judgment to an employer, finding the employer did not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by discontinuing an employee’s shift differential due to absences necessitated by FMLA leave.
A recent U.S. district court decision in Connecticut shows that drug testing applicants and employees in jurisdictions that authorize the use of legalized medical marijuana may present challenges.
A Connecticut federal court judge provided further clarification for employers concerning Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA).
Vermont and likely Connecticut will soon join California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Puerto Rico (along with various cities and counties) in prohibiting salary history inquiries.
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s holding in Williams v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., No. SC 19829 (August 17, 2017) is a mixed bag for Connecticut employers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that to advance a viable claim for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employee need only demonstrate that exercising his or her rights under the FMLA, such as taking protected leave, was viewed as a negative factor by the employer in connection with an adverse employment action. This so-called “motivating factor” or “mixed-motive” standard is a lower burden of proof than the “but for” standard often applied to retaliation claims.
In Boutillier v. Hartford Public Schools, No. 3:13-CV-01303-WWE (November 17, 2016), a Connecticut district court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
There have been a number of recent legislative developments that will impact physician noncompete agreements entered into in Connecticut. First, any physician noncompete agreement entered into on or after July 1, 2016, must comply with Public Act No. 16-95 (the Act), which was signed into law by Governor Dannel P. Malloy on June 2, 2016. In short, the Act prohibits noncompete agreements that restrict physicians from competing for a period longer than 1 year or provide for a geographical restriction of more than 15 miles from the primary site where the physician practices. In addition, the Act provides that noncompete agreements will be enforceable only when a physician resigns or is discharged for cause.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held that a human resources manager could be held liable as an employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In issuing its decision in Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, the court also articulated standards for FMLA interference claims and association discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
On July 2, 2015, Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed into law Public Act No. 15-196, entitled An Act Concerning Pay Equity and Fairness (the Act). The Act is effective as of July 1, 2015 and limits an employer’s ability to discourage employees from having open discussions about their wages.
On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a much-anticipated proposed rule that seeks to amend the EEOC’s prior regulations with respect to employer “wellness programs” and address the implications of such programs under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
On March 23, 2015, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe signed a new law, H.B. 2081, that restricts the ability of employers in Virginia to access the social media accounts of current and prospective employees—making Virginia the nineteenth state to enact such legislation. The other 18 states include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
In a recent decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a plumbing foreman was not entitled to compensation for the time he spent commuting to and from job sites and his home at the beginning and end of his workday, even though he used a company vehicle and carried his employer’s tools to and from
In a recent decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court gave teeth to the provisions of Connecticut General Statute § 31-296 of the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act—which provide a mechanism through which employers and employees can work together to reach a private agreement regarding the compensation owed to an employee who suffers a workplace injury. In so
Tuxis Ohr’s Fuel Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, No. 18791 (July 30, 2013): The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an employee who lost his commercial driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol while off duty and, as a result, was discharged from a job for which that license was required, was
State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391, No. 18749 (August 6, 2013): The Connecticut Supreme Court recently upheld the reversal of an arbitrator’s decision to reinstate an employee whose employment was terminated for sexually harassing a coworker. The court determined that the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement was a violation of “clear, well-defined, and
On September 25, 2012, the Connecticut Supreme Court held in Velez v. Comm’r of Labor, 306 Conn. 475 (Conn. 2012) that the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act (CFMLA) applies only to employers with 75 or more employees located within the state of Connecticut, irrespective of the total number of employees it employs elsewhere.