Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Insight on Labor & Employment Developments for Connecticut Businesses

Final Overtime Rule Released; Challenges Ahead for Connecticut Employers

Posted in Featured, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center, Wage & Hour

presentsIf you like to open your presents on Christmas Eve, the U.S. Department of Labor is for you. Last night, the DOL posted the final revised rule on overtime on its website ahead of its planned announcement this afternoon.

What a gift for employment lawyers!  Needless to say, I was up late unwrapping all my “gifts.”

Remember: These changes apply only to the so-called white-collar exemptions: Executive, Administrative and Professional.  So, if the employee falls within a different exemption, this rule does not apply.

And, as I’ll explain below, for Connecticut employers, the challenges are just beginning.  The rule applies to all employers covered by the FLSA (FLSA covers employers engaged in interstate commerce and gross volume of $500,000.00 in sales) but Connecticut employers will also have to worry about state law as well.

Here are the highlights (the DOL has released a chart comparing all the changes as well):

  • As expected, the new rule changes the salary basis to $47,476 annually ($913/week) — slightly less than the proposed rule last year. In plain English, anyone who makes less than this amount must be paid overtime for any hours over 40 in a work week — regardless of his or her duties.
  • This threshold will change every three years, and will be tied to the salary level at the 40th percentile of earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region, currently the South.
  • The new rule makes no changes to the duties test.   If an employee had duties that fell within the executive exemption, for example, they will still be exempt — that is, if their minimum salary now meets the threshold of $47,476.
  • The rule increases the “highly compensated employee” exception to the exemption to $134,004 – and that too will change every three years. (But note that Connecticut law does not have such an exception.)
  • The rule becomes effective December 1, 2016. Note that December 1 is a Thursday, so employers will have to make sure that the entire pay period is compliant with the new rule.
  • The new rule will now permits employers to use non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the new standard salary level.  This is a brand new element and should help employers meet that threshold (a bit).

The USDOL also released guidance for non-profits and higher education to address concerns in those areas.  Those employers should review that guidance specifically.

For Connecticut employers, though, take a deep breath before jumping in.  Connecticut has its own state law and regulations that are now in conflict with this federal rule. And as the CTDOL notes in its guide to wage & workplace laws: “The laws that provide the higher or stricter standard shall apply.”

What does that mean here? We’ll have to wait and see if the Connecticut Department of Labor updates its guidance for starters.  It is challenging for Connecticut to update its regulations so, for now, we can only hope that the CTDOL might at least shed some light on how it might enforce the state rules. (There is a helpful chart that it has used in the past, for example, that could be updated.)

But here, on first glance, are three other items of concern I have for now:

  1. The salary test in Connecticut does not contain an allowance to consider nondiscretionary bonuses.  Will that change (at least as a matter of enforcement) now that the federal regulations allow employers to consider that? And how should the deduction rule be applied in such an instance? Would Connecticut recognize an increased salary basis but without such bonuses as the more “protective” of the law?
  2. The CTDOL has previously recognized a “no man’s land” (its words) where the interaction of the rules is confusing; how will it deal with a similar (and much larger) no man’s land where the salary is higher, but the duties test has been met?
  3. Connecticut does not have an exemption for highly compensated employees. The new federal rule does not change state law and thus the HCE exemption will still not apply here.  Will the CTDOL reconsider that in light of the increased threshold at a federal level?

What’s the Takeaway for Employers in Connecticut?

For employers in Connecticut, do not just blindly adopt the new federal rule into your workplace.

For example, increasing the base salary to avoid overtime obligations under the federal rule may not matter if the employee does not meet the duties test under Connecticut law for the same exemption.

This is one of those situations that will require a case-by-case look at specific positions and the interaction between state and federal law.  Unfortunately, you’ll probably want to consult heavily with various HR consultants or lawyers specializing in employment law.

So, as a said before, stay calm. You can do this.  You have until December.

 

One Big Thing For Employers to Know About the New Overtime Rule

Posted in Highlight, Laws and Regulations, Wage & Hour
Making Lemonade Out of Lemons

Making Lemonade Out of Lemons

Are you tired of lawyers commenting already on the new overtime rules?

(The answer should be no, of course, since you’re reading this blog and thus have room for one more view.)

But I think it’s fair to say that we haven’t seen a feeding frenzy like this on employment law in many, many years.  And with the massive publicity of this rule comes an opportunity, as I’ll explain too.

So, dear readers, deep breath time.   We’ll get through it together.

There’s already been lots of pixels spilled about how employers can “solve” their overtime issues that will arise under this rule by making various changes in their workplace.

For example, employers can increase an employee’s salary to $47,476 annually if that employee otherwise meets the duties test, to keep an employee “exempt” from overtime.

Or the employer can limit the overtime that the employee can work, explaining that it is concerned with controlling costs.

But in all the analysis, I think one big thing has been overlooked: Employers can use this announcement as an opportunity to review and re-classify all sorts of employees — even if they are not directly impacted by the new rule.

Too often, employers who discover that they have misclassified employees believe that they are in a conundrum. Keep their head down and hope no one notices, or properly classify the employee and keep their fingers crossed that they don’t get sued for back pay.  Neither option is a great one for employers who need to get into compliance. (I once proposed an amnesty proposal to solve this dilemma.)   Sometimes, employers have legitimate reasons why an employee has been classified as non-exempt but wants to avoid any future issues. Perhaps in other situations the employee isn’t working overtime anyways.

But here is where the opportunity comes in: As I highlighted at the start, the new overtime rule has received unprecedented amounts of publicity in the workplace. No doubt most of your employees have now heard something about it.  So, some won’t be surprised if they are notified that things are changing for their position as a result of the new rule.

While the rule doesn’t provide amnesty for employers who make such changes, the new rule does remove some of the suspicions employees may have about the changes — even when those changes are perfectly legal.  Employees may be more understanding.  Employers can explain truthfully that the new rule has required them to review the classification of all of its employees and the changes are as a result of the rule.

So, yes, the rule may be difficult to comply with. But don’t miss out on the opportunities that may arise from this rule as well.  Full compliance with the law will be so much cheaper than paying for a massive wage-and-hour suit.  And as I’ve said before, compliance is the ultimate goal. You should not be looking for ways to circumvent the law.

So ultimately, perhaps you’ll view the new overtime rule as more about lemonade than lemons, as the saying goes.

Three Things to Look For In Final Overtime Regulations

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Wage & Hour
USDOL Headquarters in DC

USDOL Headquarters in DC

Late Monday, several reports on Twitter indicated that the Department of Labor would be announcing and releasing the final version of the revisions to the white-collar overtime regulations.  You can see my prior posts on the subject here and here.

This has been a long time coming. It was way back in 2014 (!) that the President indicated that he wanted the USDOL to revisit them.

And the anticipation on Twitter has been breathless with so-called experts predicting for months that the new regulations would be released any day. Or last week.  Or in July.  And speculation on what would be in the final overtime rule has run rampant.

So, rather than predict what will be in the final regulations, I want to highlight three areas that I’ll be looking at in my initial review of the regulation.

  1. Salary Test: The proposed rule last year raised the salary test to $50,440 from its current level of $23,660 (which the vast majority of employees meet in Connecticut due to minimum wage being high.)  The latest thinking is that the final rule will set that threshold at $47,000.  (UPDATED: News reports on Tuesday afternoon indicated that the threshold will be set at $47,476 and be updated every three years.)  What does that mean? It means that any employee who is paid less than that amount regardless of his or her duties would need to be paid overtime for any work over 40 hours.  That would indeed be a big change.  So, when we look at the new rule, first item to look at is the salary threshold set by the USDOL.  There is no question it will be high; it’s just a question of how high.  Bonus item to look at: Will the salary test be tied to inflation? In other words – will the threshold keep up with inflation automatically in future years? The proposed version tied it to the 40 percentile of income; will that remain in the final rule?
  2. Duties Test: The proposed rule did not explicitly change the duties test for overtime — meaning that the administrative, professional and executive exemptions would still apply as current framed — albeit at a higher salary threshold.  However, the proposed rule solicited input from the public about how best to alter the duties part of the test.  Would the USDOL be so bold as to introduce changes to the duties test without first floating it in a proposed rule? The prevailing wisdom is no, but keep an eye on that and any hints about future revisions to this rule. (UPDATED: News reports on Tuesday suggest that no changes to the duties tests will be forthcoming.)
  3. Timing: Another thing to look for in the final rule: How much time will employers have to comply? And how long until the rules go into effect? Back in November 2015, a government official suggested that employers would have 60 days to comply. Will that hold up? (UPDATED: News reports on Tuesday also indicated that employers will have until December 1, 2016.) 

For employers in Connecticut, the new rules will make things particularly challenging. For years, Connecticut’s stricter overtime rules have been the go-to source for employers. However, with the new federal rules being even stricter (or, more favorable to the employee) than the state rule, we may see a return to federal dominance.  So a bonus thing to look for in Connecticut: How will these rules interact with Connecticut’s rule? Don’t just read the federal rule in isolation.

And to be clear, there are other aspects of this rule that we will undoubtedly have to look for.  But I’m not going to make predictions about a rule we haven’t seen.

I will make one overall prediction, however: Publications, blogs and people on Twitter are going to be hysterical over the pronouncements of the new rule. My suggestion? Ignore them.  The hype is designed, in part, on scaring employers into a frenzy.

What to do instead? Employers should view this new overtime rules with a bit of detachment.  Get the facts.  Then, figure out what applies to your business and start work on a plan to meet those requirements.

President Signs New Federal Trade Secrets Act; Added Protection for Employers

Posted in Highlight, Laws and Regulations

Yesterday, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act — a broad federal law designed to give companies added protection.  It does not circumvent state law — indeed, where a state law is more protective of the trade secret, it still applies. Nevertheless, it provides a base level of uniformity nationwide.

My colleagues, Pat Fahey and Lee Duval, prepared this summary a few days ago, which I republish here.  But candidly, there are plenty of such summaries out there by nearly every lawfirm.  You can find a whole host of them on LXBN.  If the subject is of interest to you, it’s worth following up with your attorney to get more information about how this statute is likely to impact your particular company.

congressWith the long-awaited passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), which amends the Economic Espionage Act, federal law will now provide a civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.

Prior to the DTSA, the protection of trade secrets was largely a matter of state law and based primarily on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”).

Most states have adopted a version of UTSA, but variations between states on essential requirements, such as what qualifies as a trade secret, led to the call for a federal body of law that would be more predictable and uniform.

The DTSA does not preempt state laws governing trade secrets, but will allow civil litigants to pursue an additional claim and to bring those claims in federal court.

Litigants will still be able to pursue state law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, but by filing in federal court, they will now have access to the broad, nationwide discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the unique remedies afforded by the new law.

Two provisions of DTSA are particularly noteworthy: the allowance of ex parte seizure orders and certain employee protections.

Ex parte seizure orders – essentially an order from the court permitting the seizure of property to prevent the use or dissemination of the stolen trade secret without notice to the accused wrongdoer – would be permitted in “extraordinary circumstances.”

In the event that a wrongful seizure occurs, the victims will be entitled to damages, including punitive damages upon a showing of bad faith, and attorneys’ fees.

It remains to be seen how courts will interpret the ex parte seizure provisions, including what constitutes a wrongful seizure, and whether or not such requests will be made often by the trade secret owner.

The DTSA also provides certain protections for employees, which includes contractors and consultants.

Specifically, the legislation provides protection for certain “whistleblower” employees, and employers are obligated to inform their employees of these new protections.

For example, if an employee discloses a company’s trade secret in confidence “solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law,” that employee is immune from liability under DTSA.

Moreover, going forward, employers who fail to provide their employees with notice of the new immunities could lose the ability to recover punitive damages or attorneys’ fees in an action against an employee.

The notice requirement may be satisfied by an employer “provid[ing] a cross-reference to a policy document provided to the employee that sets forth the employer’s reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.”

In addition, the law prohibits a court from “prevent[ing] a person from entering into an employment relationship” and requires that any conditions placed on the new employment “be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows”, which is intended to foster employee mobility and to avoid conflict with state law.

Thus, in states that have authorized the “inevitable disclosure” doctrine as being a sufficient basis to justify a misappropriation of trade secrets claim, it will be imperative that the employer bring state law claims in addition to a DTSA claim.

We strongly recommend that employers take notice of the changes the DTSA makes to existing law.  All employers should review any employee agreement that “governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information” and provide the requisite notice of the new immunities.

Employers also are encouraged to perform a trade secret audit to identify or inventory and document their claimed trade secrets, the steps that have been implemented to protect those trade secrets from disclosure and the economic value associated with the trade secret.

By taking these steps now, an employer will be in a better position if it finds itself in a dispute regarding the misappropriation of the company’s trade secrets.

Major Modifications to Immigration Programs May Cause Major Headaches

Posted in Highlight, Laws and Regulations

ashleymendoza1eckertToday, I’m delighted to bring you what I hope will be the first of several updates for employers from the immigration law perspective.  One of my newest colleagues, Ashley Mendoza, along with my law partner Brenda Eckert, have been tracking some of the newest rules for employers coming out of the Department of Homeland Security.  These rules will have a particular impact to employers who recruit from the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) areas.  For employers that rely on foreign workers to help supplement their ranks, this is crucial to understand.

But a cautionary note: It’s a bit technical. There’s really no way around that. Immigration laws are just filled with technical requirements. Indeed, that’s one reason why a qualified immigration lawyer is often needed to help employers navigate these rules. Brenda and Ashley are leading the way here at my firm and I thank them for this detailed update.

Yesterday (May 10, 2016), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) implemented major modifications to Optional Practical Training (“OPT”) extensions for students on F-1 visas enrolled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) degree programs.

IMG_7083The new regulations, published at 8 CFR Parts 214.2(f) and 274a, authorize a 24-month STEM OPT extension period, replacing the previous 17-month STEM OPT extension period.

While at first glance, the new STEM OPT extension regulations may seem a cause for celebration, there are a number of added requirements and oversight provisions and, for some U.S. employers, the benefits may not outweigh the burdens.

What is OPT?

OPT is a form of temporary employment available to students holding F-1 visas that directly relates to a student’s program of study. The employment is often paid, and may take place during and/or after completion of the degree program.

The overarching idea is that OPT will afford eligible international students and new graduates the opportunity to gain hands-on practical experience to supplement what they learned during their degree program. Students may be authorized for a total of 12 months of full-time OPT at each educational level (e.g., undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate).

The application process is relatively straight forward. The student must first request approval from his or her designated school official (“DSO”), who will then make a recommendation to the electronic Student and Exchange Visitor and Information System (“SEVIS”) by endorsing a Form I-20.

Thereafter, the student must file the Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, supporting documentation, and a filing fee of $380.00 with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).

The extension & the changes to it

Since 2008, eligible students who graduate with a qualified STEM degree and are presently engaged in a period of approved post-completion OPT may have the option to extend their OPT for a period of 17 months.

This is the existing STEM OPT extension, and this is what the new regulations modify. These changes will affect all parties involved in the STEM OPT extension process. This includes the students and the U.S. employers with whom the students will train during the course of the approved period of STEM OPT.

Not to be forgotten, however, are the DSO’s who perform pivotal work with students behind-the-scenes to recommend them for OPT and extensions and maintain student records in SEVIS.

So, what’s new?

The better question, really, is what isn’t new.

The new regulations provide a comprehensive overhaul to the STEM OPT program.

Continue Reading

EEOC Releases Guidance on Employer-Provided Leave Under ADA

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

nurseSo, back in January, I penned a post titled “Can You Fire an Employee Who Has Exhausted FMLA Leave?”

As if to respond, the EEOC yesterday released guidance that basically answers: Not necessarily, because it might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

And that is the crux of the issue for employers.

Before I go further, let’s remember one thing: The ADA is a statute that demands flexibility.  It requires that employers provide “reasonable accommodations” to employees to enable them to perform the essential functions of their job.

The EEOC’s guidance tries to explain this flexibility in various ways.  Sometimes it clarifies the situation; but in other ways, the guidance only serves to create more questions for employers to ponder.

The guidance is broken down into six key areas.

1. Equal Access to Leave Under an Employer’s Leave Policy. This is fairly straightforward; the same leaves of absence rules applicable to employees without disabilities should be applied to those with disabilities.

2. Granting Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation. The EEOC’s continues to argue that an employer must consider providing unpaid leave to an employee with a disability as a reasonable accommodation if the employee requires it, and so long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer.

3. Leave and the Interactive Process Generally.  The EEOC reminds employers that when an employee requests an accommodation such as leave (and note: such requests rarely come in a neat fashion like “I hereby invoke my rights under the ADA for a reasonable accommodation”), the employer should promptly engage in an “interactive process” with the employee.  This process should focus on the specific reasons the employee needs leave, whether the leave will be a block of time or intermittent, and when the need for leave will end. Even under this instance, the employer may consider the “undue hardship” the leave may have on the workplace.

4. Maximum Leave Policies. Although employers are allowed to have leave policies that establish the maximum amount of leave an employer will provide or permit, the EEOC argues that employers may have to grant leave beyond this amount as a reasonable accommodation to employees who require it because of a disability, unless the employer can show that doing so will cause an undue hardship.  Thus, policies with hard caps may violate the ADA.

5. Return to Work and Reasonable Accommodation (Including Reassignment).  In this section, the EEOC argues that employers should avoid “100% Healed” policies, which require that an employee be fully recovered before returning to work.  A temporary transfer to a vacant position might allow the employee to return earlier while the employee continues to heal, for example.  Again, the notion of a “reasonable accommodation” and flexibility controls.

6. Undue Hardship. For employers, this may be the last safeguard and one that might need to be used more.  For example, an employer might argue that the duration and frequency of the leave, and the impact on the employer’s business, make such a leave too difficult under the circumstances.  A big plus for employers, however is that an “indefinite leave” — meaning an employee cannot say whether or when she will be able to return to work at all — “will constitute an undue hardship”.  But overall, employers will need to examine such requests on a case-by-case basis.

Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer Law Blog suggests in his post today that this guidance “goes a long way to answering many of the questions employers will have.”  I respectfully disagree with Jon.  The EEOC’s guidance is an aggressive approach to the law that has yet to be fully tested by the courts.  Rather than create clarity, the guidance pushes the boundaries as to what employers should do. And CT’s anti-discrimination laws have their own requirements which may (or may not) mirror all of the ADA’s requirements.

For example, if an employee cannot do the essential functions of the job he or she was hired for with a reasonable accommodation, why is it reasonable to assign them permanently to another job?

That’s not to say that employers should turn a blind eye to those with disabilities or those in need to some extra time in some circumstances. I’m not advocating that at all; being understanding of your employees is vital being a good employer. And there will be instances where employers will do all that it can to keep a valued employee.

But I worry about the situations in which an employee is abusing leave; there has to be an end point. A point at which the employer can legitimately say “enough is enough.”

And with the EEOC’s guidance, that end point remains as muddy as ever.

Legislative Update: New Non-Compete Restrictions for Physicians

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

doctorContinuing my review of new employment-related bills is a measure that limits the use of non-compete agreements for doctors.

Anyone who tracks bills knows that the name on the bill sometimes doesn’t match the content. Senate Bill 351 entitled “AN ACT CONCERNING MATTERS AFFECTING PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITALS” is a good case in point.

Seems innocuous enough, right? But through various amendments and compromises, it actually contains specifics on what can or cannot be in a non-compete agreement for physicians.  (For limits in other professions, see prior posts here and here.)

In general, the bill sets up a one year and 15 mile limit for physician non-compete agreements for any agreement after July 1, 2016.

The bill does not specify what is to happen to existing agreements that may have broader restrictions; will courts find that they violate the new ‘public policy’ of Connecticut, as the attorneys at the Working Together blog suggest? That remains to be seen.

For employers that have yet to draw up agreements, arguably there is a 60-day window to do so but given that this may now become law, it might be too little too late.  (I have not heard whether the governor intends to veto this measure.)

For existing agreements, it appears that the review will attempt to mirror common law with three standards (note that the term “covenant not to compete” is actually defined as being applicable only to physicians).  These standards are:

A covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is: (A) Necessary to protect a legitimate business interest; (B) reasonably limited in time, geographic scope and practice restrictions as necessary to protect such business interest; and (C) otherwise consistent with the law and public policy.

The bill goes on to state that:

A covenant not to compete that is entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, shall not: (A) Restrict the physician’s competitive activities (i) for a period of more than one year, and (ii) in a geographic region of more than fifteen miles from the primary site where such physician practices;

Simple enough, right? Well, not exactly, the agreement also shall not:

(B) be enforceable against a physician if

(i) such employment contract or agreement was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and such contract or agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to such expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or

(ii) the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated for cause.

That’s a lot of “ands” and “unlesses” if you’re keeping track at home.  But one thing I’m sure of is that a “for cause” termination allows for more flexibility.

But what is “for cause”? Can it be defined by the employer? Or is the legislature using another definition of “cause”? That, unfortunately, is a question for another day.

For now, physician groups, hospitals and other health care providers need to track signing of the measure and, if signed, review all existing agreements and form agreements for compliance with this new potential law.  The one-year/15 mile restriction should become the norm.

And if you have a strong opinion against this measure, now would be a good time to lobby the governor to veto it.

 

Legislative Update: CTFMLA Expands to Cover Military Qualifying Exigencies

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Legislative Developments, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center, Wage & Hour
Air Force Memorial in Arlington, VA

Air Force Memorial in Arlington, VA

UPDATED

Continuing to recap various employment law bills out of the Connecticut General Assembly, the legislature passed a measure Wednesday night that brings Connecticut’s FMLA law more in line with the federal counterpart.

The federal FMLA was amended back in 2008 (prior post on the subject here) to provide coverage for any “qualifying exigency” arising out of the fact that the spouse, son or daughter, or parent of the employee is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call to order in the armed forces.  Regulations were put in place as well.

The new Connecticut rule — which will go into effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature — covers that same type of qualifying exigency. Indeed, it defines such an exigency by reference to the U.S. Department of Labor’s regulations on that very subject.

What this means is that employees in Connecticut will now have 16 weeks over a 24 month period for such a leave.  You can review Senate Bill 262 here.

The new rule, however, is not a mirror image of the federal counterpart but brings its nearly up to date with it. And as readers will recall, there is a 26 week period for caregiver leave also in place in Connecticut as a result of P.A. 09-70 back in 2009.

Ultimately, employers in Connecticut will have to update their FMLA policies and procedures to account for this leave, if you haven’t been allowing military leaves under CTFMLA.

And while it’s obviously important to support the military and those that serve — the confusing and overlapping laws on the subject don’t make it easy for employers who want to do right by their employees.

Legislative Update: Bi-weekly Payroll Periods (Without CTDOL Approval) are Here!

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Legislative Developments, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center, Wage & Hour

GA2It’s been a long-time coming but the General Assembly finally approved of a measure that would allow employers to pay employees on a bi-weekly basis without receiving prior CTDOL approval.

The provision, part of a set of “technical” revisions to various Department of Labor matters, is long overdue.

Several employers had moved to a bi-weekly payroll scheme without realizing that they needed approval from the CTDOL beforehand.  That approval won’t be required anymore (assuming this bill is approved by the governor).

I’ve previously discussed the requirement so now employers who have been wary about seeking such approval, can just move ahead on their own.

Senate Bill 220 also makes lots of technical changes to the unemployment compensation scheme and even to drug testing (getting rid of the suggesting that the DOL develop some regulations in this area).  These probably won’t be of interest to most employers, but it’s worth a look through the bill summary to see if something else touches on your industry.

The measure will become effective when the Governor signs the overall bill.  (Other provisions in the bill go into effect October 1, 2016.)

Legislative Update: Modified “Ban the Box” Bill Approved in Connecticut

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Legislative Developments, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center, Wage & Hour

rockRemember “Ban the Box” and the fair chance employment bill from earlier in the session?

Well, it passed last night. Sort of.

An amendment to the original bill essentially wiped the prior version clean.  Thus, whatever you think you knew about the measure you can put that aside.

What passed last night (House Bill 5237) was a very watered-down version of the measure.   It moves on the Governor’s office for signature and will become effective January 1, 2017.

The key provision is as follows:

No employer shall inquire about a prospective employee’s prior arrests, criminal charges or convictions on an initial employment application, unless (1) the employer is required to do so by an applicable state or federal law, or (2) a security or fidelity bond or an equivalent bond is required for the position for which the prospective employee is seeking employment.

Any violation of this rule is subject to a complaint filed with the Labor Commissioner, but not a lawsuit.

I don’t expect that this will be the end of the issue however. The measure also creates a “fair chance employment task force to study issues” related to employment for individuals with a criminal history.

For now, employers need only amend their employment application to remove the box that asks about “prior arrests, criminal charges, or convictions.”  But nothing prevents a followup form from being requested or prevents these issues from being discussed in the job interview itself.

As the CBIA noted, the revised version that passed is a “wise reworking” that also affirms that businesses may run background checks on candidates if state or federal law prohibits people with criminal backgrounds being hired for a job.

Employers ought to review their existing applications and update them to comply with this new state law by January 1, 2017 (assuming the Governor’s signature, as noted.)