Connecticut employers have seen a significant increase in legislation affecting their businesses over the last few years. The Connecticut General Assembly does not show any signs of slowing down. A slew of labor and employment bills have been proposed in the 2023 legislative session.
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.
The turning of the calendar to October in Connecticut means more than just leaf peeping and apple picking. For employers, October 1, 2017, is the date that several new laws impacting employers will go into effect. This year’s fall batch includes additional protections for pregnant employees, a new notice process for workers’ compensation claims, and clarification of the eligibility of certain professional drivers for unemployment benefits.
In a case at the edges of protected employee conduct during a union organizing drive, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals last week found that an employee’s expletive-laden Facebook post cursing out his boss—and his boss’s mother, too—was within the “outer bounds” of “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that an individual can be considered an independent contractor even if he or she provides services to only one employer. The court’s decision, which was officially released on March 21, 2017, is important for any Connecticut business that utilizes contractor services.
The Connecticut Supreme Court rang in the new year with a ruling long awaited by employers, settling the lingering question as to whether punitive damages are recoverable for claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), the state’s employment discrimination statute. In Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al. (December 30, 2016), the Connecticut Supreme Court found that the CFEPA does not authorize an award of punitive damages. The decision is important in that it clarifies the scope of damages that may be recovered by an employee who is successful in bringing employment discrimination claims.
Now that a federal district court judge has issued a nationwide injunction against the new overtime rules that were to go into effect on December 1, 2016, many employers are asking “what should we do?” Some employers have already prepared to comply with the new regulations and are ready to roll out new payroll practices next month. Do they hold off or press forward?
On November 22, 2016, a federal court judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from implementing and enforcing its revised white collar overtime regulations on a national basis.
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.
In Standard Oil of Connecticut, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, a case that will have significant implications for employers in Connecticut, the state’s supreme court clarified the “ABC Test,” finding that an employer is not required to pay unemployment contribution taxes for workers who contractually install heating and security systems in residential homes because they are independent contractors, not employees.
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
This morning, with Justice Scalia writing for a 5-3 majority, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a waiver of class arbitration in a commercial contract is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), even if the plaintiffs’ cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery. The Court refused to invalidate the class-action waiver on the ground that pursuit of individual claims would be fiscally impractical. According to the Court, “The class-action waiver merely limits arbitration to the two contracting parties.
On Friday, December 14, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit set aside the determination of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) that Medco Health Solutions of Las Vegas, Inc. (Medco) violated the National Labor Relations Act (Act) when it prohibited an employee from wearing a shirt…..
