Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Insight on Labor & Employment Developments for Connecticut Businesses

No Love for Guns in Workplace Is Protected, Court Finds

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation, Wage & Hour

loveWhile the calendar may read Valentine’s Day, I’ve tackled more than my fair share of love-themed posts in the past filled with roses and chocolates.

So instead, I’m going to go in a different direction entirely: Guns. (Though query whether the music group Guns ‘n’ Roses would care to disagree with me.)

See, there was this employee who worked at a car dealership wasn’t in love with guns.  But he believed his supervisor was.  So much so that, according to a complaint filed in state court, the supervisor would sit in “his office looking at and ordering guns.”  The employee then observed that packages containing “guns, including AR-15s, clips, handguns, suppressors and [rifles]” were being delivered to work.

The employee raised the concern to the dealership’s owner. Later that date, the supervisor said allegedly told the employee to “stay the [expletive] out” of the supervisor’s business.  Two days later, the employee was fired.

The employee brought suit claiming that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of a public policy in consideration of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-49 — which requires employers to exercise reasonable care to provide employees with a reasonably safe place to work.

The Superior Court found that such a claim could survive a motion to strike.   In doing so, it court concludes that there is an important public policy of having an employee “raising his concern over firearms in the employer’s workplace”.

The case, Schulz v. Auto World, is an important reminder that not all causes of actions are clearly spelled out in the law. Sometimes courts look to general principles to take the law in different directions.

In this instance, employers should take notice of the public policy articulated by the court that guns in the workplace in Connecticut are still to be considered unusual.

The Dialogue: Hiring Employees the Right Way (From Different Sides)

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance

I’ll confess. I’m excited about today’s post.  It’s hard to find something new to do after nearly 10 years of blogging, but I think today’s post is pretty innovative. Unless you read The New York Times “The Conversation” which we’ve tried to copy emulate here.  Except this post (and hopefully others) will be called “The Dialogue”.  Somehow different, right? 

Today’s post tackles some of the legal issues regarding hiring but does so in a back-and-forth format between a management-side attorney (myself) and an employee-side attorney (Nina Pirrotti).  I’d insert a reference to the letters of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr discussing the issues of the day, but then I remembered that ended in a duel, and it’s not exactly what I was foreseeing here.  I think Nina and I can exchange some thoughts without trying to kill one another. 

Anyways, Nina and I have tried something new below.  Nina is a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald and Pirrotti, where she represents employees in all types of matters.  She’s a past-President of the Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association and a frequent presenter on employment law topics.   My thanks to her for being brave enough to try this with me.  Let me know what you think. 

The Dialogue Begins

Dan Schwartz: Welcome to the blog and thanks for engaging in this discussion on employment law. I promise that we here at the blog don’t bite and we pay all of our workers (me) minimum wage. (Ok, that’s a lie. I get nothing for writing the blog, but moving on….)

I know we were planning on talking about some developments in the world of hiring and employment law, but I can’t pass up the opportunity to ask you something about the new Trump Administration.  From the perspective of an attorney who typically represents employees, what are one or two things you’re keeping an eye out for?

nina_t_pirrotti1-150x150Nina Pirrotti: Thank you, Dan, for your warm welcome.  We plaintiffs’ employment lawyers have been feeling mighty chilly since November 8th and have been bracing ourselves ever since for even more frigid temps ahead.  Ironically, I felt the impact of Trump’s election virtually immediately.  On November 9th, I flew to Chicago and spoke at the ABA’s annual Labor & Employment conference.   

The topic of the panel on which I spoke revolved around laws which prohibit employer retaliation against employees for discussing their wages.  The laws are designed to protect female employees who are trying to figure out whether they are being paid less than their male counterparts.  

I was all set to talk about the Paycheck Fairness Act which would have expanded the protection provided by those laws and was expected to be one of the first pieces of legislation signed by Hillary Clinton.  As you can imagine, my plane ride there was consumed with a furious re-write of my outline! The next day I flew to Dallas to participate in the semi-annual Executive Board meeting for the National Employment Lawyers’ Association where we also had to nimbly adjust our focus to reflect the new (surreal) reality.  

I did not thaw out after learning that Trump nominated Andy Puzder, CEO of chain restaurants, including Hardees (which, sadly, is the maker of my all -time favorite breakfast biscuit) to head the Department of Labor.  Puzder’s employee track record, which includes opposing overtime and minimum wage laws and underpaying his own workers is abysmal.   

I can only hope that the rumors that he might back out of consideration prove to be true.  I did feel  a glimmer of hope after I learned this week that Trump has tapped EEOC Commissioner Victoria A. Lipnic as Acting Chair of EEOC.  Lipnic, who was nominated by President Obama, has served as EEOC Commissioner since 2010.

I was also mildly heartened by Trump’s expression of (granted, lukewarm) support in his campaign for pay equity laws and paid FMLA leave, both championed by Hillary Clinton and I can only hope that the person who might most positively influence him in that regard (Ivanka) is able to carry the day.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration does seem poised to reverse or suspend the changes to Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules which went into effect on December 1, 2016.  

Of course, the most important event that we plaintiffs’ employment lawyers are waiting for is the announcement of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee who would replace the very conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.  That person may likely cast the deciding vote on cases that impact the rights of workers in a myriad of ways.  Unfortunately for us, the three oldest justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg Kennedy  and Breyer  – are liberal or moderate and Trump may have more than one bite at that proverbial apple during his (hopefully only) four-year stint. 

Since your excellent blog has national appeal and one or more of these justices might actually read it, I hereby urge all three of them to eat well, exercise moderately and avoid all high risk activities! Continue Reading

Mary Tyler Moore Taught Us One of the Best Employment Discrimination Lessons

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations

MTMMary Richards’ job interview with Lou Grant is, perhaps one of the most famous job interviews ever. So says Time magazine.

Before I go on, though, there are probably more than a few of you who don’t know what I’m talking about.

But with the passing of Mary Tyler Moore earlier today here in Connecticut, I was reminded of an early exchange from her television show that was included in an employee training seminar I did for employers many years ago.  It was used as an example (with humor) of what NOT to do in a job interview as a supervisor and there were many in the audience who remembered that television show.

I haven’t been able to find the actual video online – but YouTube does have a remake of the job interview featuring cartoons.  And you can get a sense of the dialogue elsewhere.

First, you have the supervisor (Lou) asking Mary what her age was. (Sigh.) To compound matters, he then asks what her religion is. (Double sigh.)

But this is where the show was groundbreaking — Mary doesn’t just respond.  She’s a “modern woman” (as The New York Times called her) and tells him: “I don’t know quite how to tell you this, but you’re not allowed to ask that question when someone is applying for a job. It’s against the law.”  He pushes back — “You gonna call the cops?” To which, Mary demurs.

And the interview continues with personal questions including whether she was married (she was not).  Then Mary stands up and calls him out for asking so many questions that have nothing to do with the job.

Lou responds in a classic line: “You’ve Got Spunk.”  Of course, he then says he hates “spunk” but this was the early 1970s and she was still hired.

It was groundbreaking television.  As NPR reported from an interview Ed Asner (who played Lou), that moment was critical: “It was the most powerful moment in theater I’ve had, because she played it so beautifully,” Asner told NPR in 2001. “The audience was going ‘oh-goo-goo’ at that moment.”

A few years ago, Time Magazine — in calling this show’s pilot one of the 10 best of all time — noted that it really formed the foundation of the workplace-as-family sitcom that so many other shows tried to copy.

As a child of the 70s and 80s, Mary Tyler Moore stood out to me because, well, she kinda seemed like my mom who was already in the workplace. Growing up, I didn’t see it as that unusual.

But now with the hindsight of history, all employment lawyers can point to Mary Tyler Moore as giving workplace issues their rightful place. And for a generation of women, Mary Tyler Moore represented more than just a television show.  She represented them.

Proper hiring procedures are still a topic we’re talking about today and I’ll be presenting on the topic next month.  Maybe it’s time I bring back the Mary Tyler Moore reference.  Watch for details soon.

Rest in Peace, Mary Tyler Moore.

(Due to an editing error (and spell check) an early version of this post referred to her character as Mary Roberts; it is obviously Mary Richards.) 

Could “The Last Jedi” Actually Be Practicing Religion in Your Workplace?

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight

last jediYesterday, news came out that Episode 8 (I mean, VIII) of the Star Wars series would be named “The Last Jedi”.

Which reminded me about an article in The New York Times I saw a few weeks ago that I had been meaning to write about.

Turns out there are, according a BBC report cited in the Times (I swear I did not make this number up on my own), 177,000 practitioners of Jediism in Britain.

Wait, I hear you saying. Jediism? What is that? Like a religion? For real?

Well, according an application submitted to the Charity Commission for England and Wales:

Jediism draws on “the mythology of Star Wars,” and centers on a belief in the power of the Force,” according to a Temple document used by the Charity Commission to evaluate the application. It also draws on major world religions like Hinduism and Christianity, and on “the existential phenomenology of Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Buber.”

The application as it turns out, was from a group known as the Temple of the Jedi Order that sought nonprofit or charity status because, it claimed, Jediism was a religion.

The Charity Commission, however, disagreed saying it does not “promote moral or ethical improvement” and thus is not a religion.

That is not the end, however, of the Temple — as noted by a new The New York Times article yesterday as well.  Others, including, those in the United States, are still persisting.

Which led me to thinking — what would happen if an employee here in Connecticut asked for a religious accommodation on the basis of “Jediism”?

Lest you think I’m really stretching, no less than the President of the United States (Obama, that is) made remarks about this phenomenon when commending George Lucas on his Kennedy Center honors.  In that December 6, 2015 speech, he stated:  “He created a mythology so compelling that in a 2001 census, the fourth-largest religion in the United Kingdom was ‘Jedi.'”  

So, it’s out there.  But not in the courts yet. A quick search of court decisions has yet to find a case where Jediism is listed.  So, back to the question: what would the courts do if confronted about it?

Probably laugh.  After all, pledging allegiance to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was not enough to survive a motion to dismiss a religious discrimination claim.  The federal court that was confronted with the issue took swift note about the origins of the religion and ruled that it wasn’t enough to satisfy the legal requirements:

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a “religious exercise” on any other work of fiction. A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds. 6 See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ’g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not “religious” simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line.

Case closed, right? Well, perhaps, but even the EEOC has recognized that legal protections aren’t just for well established religions like Christianity.  In one Q and A, it notes the broad language of Title VII:

For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.

So perhaps someday we’ll see this tried in courts. But for now, please don’t tell my kids its not real.  And someone save seats for me at The Last Jedi when it opens.

New York (State and City) Imposes New Rules for Freelancers, State Contracts

Posted in Highlight, Laws and Regulations, Legislative Developments, Wage & Hour

IMG_7083My colleagues, Clarisse Thomas, Keegan Drenosky and I have been busy keeping track of the developments in New York which may impact Connecticut employers with cross-border business.  Here are two of the most recent developments.

Freelance Isn’t Free

The New York City Council has enacted and the Mayor has signed a new law applicable to employers who hire contractors for work in New York City.

The “Freelance Isn’t Free Act”, which goes into effect on May 15, 2017, will formalize the relationship between the freelance worker and the hiring party, and require the parties to sign a written agreement.  Freelancers are considered to be those individuals or one person corporations who offer their services to the public.

Under the new law, if the arrangement with the freelancer involves payment that is $800 or more in a 120 day period, there must be a written contract.

A sample contract is being posted on the City’s Office of Labor Standards’ website.

The contract must have 1) the name and mailing address of both parties; 2) an itemization of the services being provided; 3) the value of the services; 4) the rate and method of compensation; and 5) the date payment is to be made.  If no date of payment is specified then payment must be made no later than 30 days from the completion of the services.  After the price is agreed upon, the hiring party is prohibited from requiring as a condition of timely payment that the freelancer accept anything less than the contracted amount.  Each party must retain a copy of the contract.

The City has also established a complaint procedure to resolve disputes, while giving the freelancer the right to bring a lawsuit for damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  There are statutory damages of $250 if the freelancer only prevails on a claim that no written contract was executed.  However, the freelancer can recover additional damages in certain circumstances equal to the value of the contract, plus the value of the services, attorneys’ fees and costs.

In addition, civil penalties of up to $25,000 can be imposed on any hiring party who is found to have engaged in a “pattern or practice” of violating the law.

Because this law applies equally to both indivual employers and companies, care must be taken by anyone hiring a freelancer to ensure that a contract is in place if the fees at issue are $800 or more.

Ensuring Pay Equity

On January 9, 2017, Gov. Cuomo signed Executive Order No. 162, which is an Order for “Ensuring Pay Equity by State Contractors.”  This is an effort to ensure that there is no pay discrimination based on gender, race and ethnicity.

The Order requires state contractors (and their subcontractors) to specifically set forth the job title and salary of all the employees who are working directly on a State contract or, if they cannot be separately identified, then all the contractor’s employees.  This information is in addition to existing equal opportunity information already required to be submitted.

All State contracts, agreements and procurements executed on or after June 1, 2017 will contain this requirement.

 

Connecticut Legislative Session Preview: Is a New State Overtime Rule In Play?

Posted in Highlight, Legislative Developments, Wage & Hour

capitoldasThe Connecticut General Assembly is back in session and with significant budget deficits looming, it’s not going to be an easy year for legislators.

From a labor and employment law session, once again it will be interesting to see what will be seriously considered.

A Bloomberg Law article late last week suggested that Democrats in several states, including Connecticut, are planning bills to try to replicate the federal overtime-pay overhaul that has been held up in federal court.   Without citing names, the article states:

Democrats in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Wisconsin and Michigan said they plan to introduce bills modeled on Obama’s reform, which would have made millions more white-collar workers eligible for overtime.

A cursory look at the Bill Record book for the Labor & Public Employees committee fails to show such a bill yet, but it’s still early. At this point in the legislative cycle, only early “proposed” bills are officially on record. That, of course, doesn’t mean that other draft bills aren’t being floated out there.

So among the proposed bills, what else is out there being considered for 2017?

  • As expected, a paid family & medical leave bill is definitely on the table now, after being looked at for the last 18 months or so.  Indeed, it is titled “Proposed Senate Bill No. 1″ and is co-sponsored by several senators.  Having a bill marked as “One” indicates that this will be a priority in the current session.  The details, however, are still being worked on.
  • Another bill that already has garnered widespread support including from the House leadership is Proposed House Bill 5591.   While again, the details are still forthcoming, the bill would “require employers, including the state and political subdivisions, to provide equal pay to employees in the same workplace who perform comparable duties.”  What’s still unknown is why this is being sought, just 2 years after another pay equity bill titled “An Act on Pay Equity and Fairness” was passed. Time will tell, but expect to see more on this bill soon.
  • Another bill concerning “Various Pay Equity and Fairness Matters” (not to be confused with prior bills) has also been proposed by new Representative Derek Slap from West Hartford.  That bill would mirror some other states that have recently passed bills further limiting what prospective employers can ask applicants. Specifically, this Proposed House Bill 5210 would:

(1) Prohibit employers from asking a prospective employee’s wage and salary history before an employment offer with compensation has been negotiated, provided prospective employees may volunteer information on their wage and salary history,

(2) Prohibit employers from using an employee’s previous wage or salary history as a defense in an equal pay lawsuit,

(3) Permit an employer to have an affirmative defense in an equal pay lawsuit if it can demonstrate that, within three years prior to commencement of the lawsuit, the employer completed a good faith self-evaluation of its pay practices and can demonstrate that reasonable progress has been made towards eliminating gender-based wage differentials, and

(4) Protect seniority pay differentials from adverse adjustments for time spent on leave due to pregnancy-related conditions or protected parental, family and medical leave.

Other proposed bills can be found here including an increase in the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

One important note: The state Senate has now split 18-18 among Democrats and Republicans.  Thus, I think it’s fair to expect that there will be less laws that impact employers than in year’s past.  The CBIA has an update from a business perspective here.

Phishing Scam Targets HR Professionals By Seeking W-2s

Posted in Data Privacy, Human Resources (HR) Compliance

robertsWith the new year upon us, cyberthieves are once again attempting to prey on unwitting HR professionals, as my colleague William Roberts explained in an article last week for SHRM on phishing.

The scam goes like this. As an HR professional, you get an e-mail from your boss (or your boss’s boss) that seems legitimate…and urgent. Something like this:

I’m in the middle of a negotiation so won’t be available by cell or e-mail but I need you to send W-2s for the management team to our new accountants. You can e-mail them to [____________]. Needs to be done today. Sorry for the rush on this and please take this as an exception to normal protocol. Thanks. – Alan

It’s happened before.  Indeed, as Bill explained in the article:

“Alan was the chief financial officer,” said William J. Roberts, a Hartford, Conn.-based data privacy attorney with the law firm Shipman & Goodwin LLP. But in this case, it wasn’t Alan who was sending the e-mail. Despite the company’s policy prohibiting employees from sending sensitive documents through e-mail, a newly hired junior HR professional fell for the phishing scam and sent the W-2s to the cyberthief’s e-mail address.

That’s more than just an “Oops” moment.

Although the IRS is taking steps to help reduce this, the best defense is for HR professionals to be aware of this scam.  I previously discussed this back in March 2016 with a quick post but it’s worth looking at some of the tips presented in the SHRM article including:

  • Train employees on cybersecurity awareness. Many companies do not.
  • Use common sense and avoid making electronic requests for sensitive data. It’s not just an e-mail threat; phishing by text is also on the rise….
  • If you receive an e-mail from upper management, verify the request….

Protecting Confidential Information from Untrustworthy Employees

Posted in Data Privacy, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

starrMy colleague Gary Starr returns today with a story worth reading about the need for employers to secure confidential information.  Although it is based on Massachusetts, the concepts it covers may have some carryover to employers elsewhere as well.  

Employers that maintain records of their employees and customers and allow employees have access to confidential information have long needed policies that not only secure the information, but ensure that employees who have been granted access to such information are complying with the corporate policies and are trustworthy.

An insurance agency in Massachusetts thought it had done everything right, but was sued for negligence in its retention of an employee that it thought was trustworthy, but was not.

An employee used her computer to access confidential information that she then gave to her boyfriend about the identity of a witness to a car accident in which the boyfriend had been involved with her car.  The boyfriend used that information to contact and threaten the witness.  The witness reported the threat to the police and ultimately the boyfriend and the employee pleaded guilty to witness intimidation and conspiracy.  After the police visited the employer to obtain information about the threat, which was traced back to the employee, the employer fired the employee.

That, however, did not end the tale.

The witness then sued the employer for failing to safeguard personal information, and for negligent retention and negligent supervision.  While the trial court dismissed the case, the appellate court has determined that the facts alleged are sufficient to go to trial.

Where did the employer go wrong?  The company had adopted a data security plan and policy that prohibited employees from accessing or using personal information for personal purposes.  The computer software even required employees, who wished to access the data base with confidential information, to agree to use the information for one of four limited purposes, all of which were business related.

Those were positive steps.

The problem arose because the unrestricted access did not stop the employee from reviewing information that had an impact on her personally.  The second failure had to do with an inadequate investigation of the employee’s background and simply taking the employees word about a weapons arrest that occurred during her employment in another state.

The employee told her boss that the arrest was a misunderstanding, that she was clearing it up, and subsequently said it was resolved.  The employer simply took her word for it.

What he would have discovered with a very simple inquiry was that there were serious issues with her honesty and fitness for accessing other people’s personal information.  The company could have learned that she was traveling with her boyfriend when they were stopped for speeding and that she was arrested for having two semi-automatic guns concealed in her purse, one had the serial numbers filed off and the other was stolen.  She also had a half-mask and police scanner.  After her arrest, she told the company that there had been a misunderstanding as the weapons belonged to her boyfriend, that she didn’t know anything about them and that she was exonerated.

Her story was not true, but her account itself should have raised questions about her having access to personal information.

The court said that the company had a duty to protect the confidential information and that it was foreseeable that the employee could access information and use it for personal gain.  The company had an obligation to investigate the employee’s continuing fitness after the arrest.  The court said that a jury could decide that the failure to take action under these circumstances was unreasonable as the company knew about the weapons charge and could have learned of her lies and her willingness to commit a crime with her boyfriend.  The company did not take sufficient steps to limit the risk of harm to those whose personal information its employees could access.

There are steps to take to avoid this problem.  After an employee is hired, that does not end the need to be vigilant about their fitness for the job.  When information comes to light that may raise questions about the actions of an employee, an employer cannot simply take his/her word for what occurred.  It must take affirmative steps to explore what the underlying issue is, analyze the employee’s story, and assess the risk the employee poses if access to confidential information is abused or if other employees and the public may be put at risk.

 

Punitive Damages Not Available For State Employment Discrimination Claims

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Laws and Regulations, Litigation
Connecticut Supreme Court

Connecticut Supreme Court

In a decision that will be officially released next week, the Connecticut Supreme Court has, at last, ruled that punitive damages are not an available remedy for state law employment discrimination claims.

You may recall that I discussed the Appellate Court’s decision that had originally found the same thing back in 2015.  The case, Tomick v. United Parcel Services, has been one I’ve also discussed in other places too.

The decision itself is one for the lawyers to get. The court was more interested in dealing with issues of “statutory construction over which [the court] exercise[s] plenary review.”

So, the court started with the statute itself. It states that a court “may grant a complainant… such legal and equitable relief which it deems appropriate including, but not limited to, temporary or permanent injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and court costs… ”

Notably, the court says that this language could be considered ambiguous, so the court had to dig a little deeper.  Ultimately, the court says that “To construe this language as encompassing punitive damages without expressly stating as much, as the plaintiff advocates, would be inconsistent with our approach to the statutory construction in [a prior case], in which we required, at least as a default rule, express statutory authorization for statutory punitive damages as a form of relief.”

From there, it’s a fairly easy path forward for the court.  It notes that the legislature used the term “punitive damages” in other human rights statutes, so it knew how to craft such language and remedies.  For example, public accommodation discrimination has punitive damages as a possible remedy.

Ultimately, the court says it is not for it to read punitive damages into the statute.

But it suggests one final avenue: The General Assembly.  “Had the legislature intended for § 46a-104 to provide for statutory punitive damages, it could have amended the state statute to reflect the changes to its federal counterpart, and remains free to do so.”

However, given the split in the state senate and other pressing state business, it seems unlikely we’ll see this change for a while.

What does this mean for employers? Well, it means that state law discrimination claims became worth a little less than they used to — though the Appellate Court’s decision had been factored in for a while now.  It doesn’t mean that such claims are dead — but it does mean that employees bringing claims will have one more reason to try to pursue the claim in federal court, than state court.

 

Looking Back and Ahead to Employment Law in 2017

Posted in Highlight, Legislative Developments

targetFor many years, I’ve used my first post each year to look back and ahead at the area of employment law.  My record of predictions has been about what you would expect someone predicting the future — about average.

Last year at this time, I said a few things though that seem to resonate with me including this:

That said, it feels like we’re in a period where employment law issues are being tweaked rather than rewritten.  There hasn’t been a new federal law on employment law in many years, for example.  And at the state legislature, you wonder how much more laws can be put in place on employment law before employers say “enough”.  (See, e.g., General Electric.)

Instead, what we are seeing and will likely continue to see are new rules being promulgated at the agency level — such the decision from the NLRB last week regarding recordings in the workplace.  Even the new white-collar overtime regulations may have less of an impact in Connecticut than some fear.

Thus, for 2016, I don’t think we’ll see as much as some predict.

So far pretty good. Even the white-collar exemptions got placed on hold, so there’s been no impact in Connecticut.

But I went on with this kicker:

Then again, let’s just check back in again in a year. There will be a new President and perhaps a change of political parties.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about predictions, it’s that the future is never exactly what we think it will be.

Not bad, though I’m not sure there were many predicting both a Trump administration with Republican majorities in Congress to boot.

And so, 2017 is going to be different. Very different it seems.  The USDOL nominee is an outgoing fast-food company CEO for starters.  He’ll bring a management perspective far different than the current administration.

The biggest change we’ll see will come from the appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.  Expect the appointees to be management-friendly and roll back several decisions and rulings from the NLRB.  Those decisions, however, may take some time to work through however.

Federal increases to minimum wage or federal legislation on things like paid sick leave or employment law protection based on gender identity or sexual orientation also seem unlikely.

What happens at the U.S. Supreme Court is still up in the air as well, though don’t be surprised to see a return of a union dues or “agency fees” case.

What will happen at the state level? Stay tuned.