The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) issued guidance on January 20, 2021, clarifying certain aspects of New York’s COVID-19–related quarantine leave law and expanding certain benefits under the law. Parts of the guidance came as a surprise to some employers, as they appear to impose additional obligations on employers to pay employees if they require the employees to remain out of work due to potential COVID-19 exposure.
The year 2020 has certainly come with its share of new challenges. Now, with the presidential election less than a month away, heightened tensions around the country, new remote work environments, videoconferences offering a window into employees’ personal lives, face masks with political slogans, and so much more, New York employers might want to start thinking through what employee political conduct they can and can’t regulate this election season.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law New York City Council Int. No. 2032-A on September 28, 2020, after the city council passed the bill a few days earlier. The legislation, which took effect on September 30, 2020, amends the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA) and generally aligns the ESSTA with the New York State Sick Leave Law (New York Labor Law § 196-b) (NYSSLL), the accrual provisions of which also took effect on September 30, 2020.
Connecticut employers need to start their preparations for the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA), a law that requires all private employers with Connecticut employees to provide paid leave to eligible employees. The Connecticut Paid Leave (CTPL) program, established by the PFMLA, is set to begin in just a few short months. Until then, there are important dates and key steps that employers may want to review to ensure their workplaces are prepared.
On December 6, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., No. 17-3388, that judicial approval is not required to settle Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims via a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a) offer of judgment.
As we approach the November 2019 elections, New York employers may want to keep in mind the state’s recently amended Election Law, which entitles employees to time off to vote.
Attention, Connecticut employers. October 1, 2019, marks the implementation of two new Connecticut laws. First, Connecticut will begin gradually increasing its minimum wage on October 1, 2019, raising the minimum wage to $11.00 an hour. Second, Connecticut’s Time’s Up Act, which extends sexual harassment training requirements to all employers in the state, also goes into effect. Now is the time to make sure that your policies and procedures are in compliance.
On June 18, 2019, Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Connecticut’s new sexual harassment prevention legislation, known as the Time’s Up Act. The law significantly broadens sexual harassment training requirements, extending them to all employers in the state, and toughens penalties for noncompliance. The law also enhances protections for employees who complain about sexual harassment in the workplace.
As of January 1, 2019, Connecticut employers are prohibited from inquiring about prospective employees’ wage or salary histories.
A Connecticut federal court judge provided further clarification for employers concerning Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA).
The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently held, by a unanimous decision, that termination was not the only appropriate disciplinary action for a public employee who had been caught smoking marijuana during working hours. In so doing, the court found that despite the state’s “explicit, well-defined and dominant public policy against the possession and recreational use of marijuana in the workplace[,]” discipline less than termination could be appropriate.
On June 1, 2016, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed into law a “ban-the-box” statute, which will take effect on January 1, 2017. The law, “An Act Concerning Fair Chance Employment,” Public Act No. 16-83, prohibits covered employers from inquiring about a prospective employee’s prior arrests, criminal charges, or convictions on an initial employment application.
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).
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