Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

One of my new favorite "undiscovered gems" on the Internet, is Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries' Newslog.  It is a site maintained by the librarians with daily entries to help people stay informed about "recent legal developments, legal practice tools, and law library resources". It's another example of how librarians are adapting to new technology and providing a helpful resource. 

And best of all, they have added RSS feeds to allow readers to "subscribe" to it.  (If you don't know what a "feed" is, see my easy-to-read post on the subject here.)

One of the entries that caught my eye recently was a research memo prepared by the Office of Legislative Research that discussed what the Connecticut laws are regarding employers who hire illegal immigrants.  The issue arises out of a law that Arizona passed last year that provides for extreme penalties to employers who hire illegal immigrants. 

So what does Connecticut say on the subject? Well, the memo points to Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-51k, which has been on the books for 35 years, as the applicable law:

Since 1972, Connecticut law has penalized employers who knowingly employ aliens not entitled to lawful residence. A first offense is punishable by a fine of $ 200 to $ 500. Any subsequent offense is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $ 2,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

But not so fast. 

As the OLR memo goes on to state, that law is likely preempted by the 1986 Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) which preempts “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens” 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(2).  Thus, even with a Connecticut law on the books, it probably has no real effect anymore because of the federal law "preempting" it. (Why have the state law then still on the books? That's a good question for another day.)

The memo concludes by stating that the Arizona law is different because that state statute deals with a business license, which is exempted from preemption. 

With no action on any immigration-related bills in Connecticut this session, Connecticut employers should continue to educate themselves on the requirements of IRCA in dealing with illegal aliens. The Department of Labor's website is a good place to start and there are additional materials located here. But the enforcement of laws relating to the hiring of illegal aliens has also been picked up by the Department of Homeland Security and even Connecticut has its own Alien Labor Certification Unit. It is an area filled with risk and employers should continue to tread carefully.

Lastly, on a lighter note, what post on alien workers, would be complete without a link to the classic Genesis song "Illegal Alien". So, on this Friday, a link to the deliciously tacky video is below:

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A bill to provide mandatory paid sick leave to employees and a bill to provide greater protection to state whistleblowers were among the employment law-related bills that were not voted upon in the final day of the legislative session -- effectively killing them. 

The Paid Sick Leave bill, S.B. 217, had passed the Senate last week, but the House did not bring the measure up for a vote. As I indicated yesterday, nearly 25 amendments had been proposed on it -- a sign that the bill was going to be in for a long fight.  My earlier coverage of the bill is available here. CT News Junkie has a report on it as well.

The Whistleblower bill, S.B. 335, had also passed the Senate, but again, the House did not act on that provision either. My earlier coverage of the bill is available here.

Other bills that were not acted upon by the legislature include: a Workplace Bullying bill; a bill protecting child in the entertainment industry from child labor abuses; and a bill to allow workers to be paid by a pay or debit card.

One bill that did pass this week allows for the regulation of various professional service organizations and about employee misclassification (H.B. 5113).  I'll cover that in further detail in an upcoming post.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today is the final day of the General Assembly and the Paid Sick Leave proposal (S.B. 217) is expected to come before the House before the close of business.  But, perhaps in a sign that it is doomed to die a procedural death, it has drawn nearly 25 proposed amendments.  

One of the listed amendments is just a head scratcher.  Specifically, House Amendment 6092 (proposed by House Republican Leader Lawrence Cafero and Rep. Aman) would, in essence, allow employees to use paid sick leave for the first day of summer, the first day of fishing or hunting season, or, and I kid you not, the opening day of baseball season. 

Don't believe me? Here's the actual language:  

(e) No employer shall require documentation of an illness, injury or health condition, as described in subsection (b) of this section, if the employee uses a paid sick day on the twenty-first day of the month of June, the first day of a sport-fishing or hunting season authorized pursuant to chapter 26 of the general statutes, or the opening day of the official Major League Baseball season. " 

Thus, under this amendment, an employee could take the day off to attend the Opening Day of baseball season, and the employer would just have to "take the employee's word" that the day was a paid sick leave day.  The Office of Fiscal Analysis even issued a one sentence report indicating that it would have no "fiscal impact" in the state.

Because the proposal comes from two Republican lawmakers (who, as a group, have expressed skepticism about the bill), I think it's fair to say that this proposal will go nowhere. Maybe it is just being used to make a point that the paid sick leave bill will be difficult to enforce. But, given the ramifications of the Paid Sick Leave act bill, as I've covered before, one has to wonder what they were thinking in taking the time to draft an actual amendment on this topic.

The General Assembly starts again this morning. Grab your popcorn. Should be a fun last day.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I realize this blog has been a little top heavy of late with legislative developments, but it always seems that a whole year's worth of developments occur within a 2-3 week period at the end of the short General Assembly session. With this year's session scheduled to close at the end of the day on Wednesday, the developments are fast and furious. The court updates will return in force soon.

In the meantime, here's the brief recap of some of the developments from the last day or two (more to follow if and when necessary):

15-Year-Old Workers

The House late today passed a bill today that reinstates the labor law permitting 15-year-olds to work in grocery stores and similar positions. I expect the Governor to sign it shortly.  I've covered the bill in detail, most recently yesterday.  The bill, S.B. 216, can be downloaded here.  It will become effective immediately upon signature by Gov. Rell.  It amends Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-23. 

Jury Duty

The provision on jury duty were amended in a few subtle ways through a bill passed by the House on Monday and expected to be signed by the Governor.

First, House Bill 5918 (download text here) allows persons who have served on jury duty in the last three years to request the opportunity to serve again even though they would otherwise be excused.  (It amends Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-217a(a) in doing so.) 

Second, the bill also provides additional protection to workers on jury duty.  Specifically, it makes it clear that "any juror-employee who has served eight hours of jury duty in any one day shall be deemed to have worked a legal day's work as that term is used in section 31-21...and an employer shall not require the juror employee to work in excess of eight hours." 

What does this mean? In practical terms, it means that jurors cannot be required to work while they are also serving full days on jury duty.  Employees can, it appears, voluntarily work -- after hours, for example -- since the language prohibits requiring the employee to do so.  Because Connecticut does not have a daily overtime rule, the employee may not even be entitled to overtime for simply working in addition to jury duty.

This jury duty law will go into effect on October 1, 2008, assuming Gov. Rell signs the bill.

Child Performer Protection

The House has yet to address House Bill 5677, which would institute a whole new range of protections for children who act (or "perform").  You can download the bill here, but the lack of action on the bill so far indicates that time may run out on this provision. 

Whistleblower Protection

S.B. 335, which expands the protection of state whistleblowers has yet to be considered by the House. I looked at Senate Bill 335 in an earlier post. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The State Senate late yesterday approved a bill that would increase the minimum wage in 2009 and 2010.  The bill (H.B. 5105), had previously passed the House and now moves to Governor Rell for her signature.

CT News Junkie reports that Gov. Rell has some reservations about the bill:

Gov. M. Jodi Rell is still uncertain about whether she would sign it. Rell’s spokesman Adam Liegeot said in an emailed statement, “While the governor understands the needs of minimum wage workers, she does not want to take any action that will negatively impact businesses and jobs in Connecticut, especially during this troubled economy. Governor Rell will take her time and review this bill closely before deciding what action to take.”

The bill, if signed, will increase in the minimum wage from $7.65 an hour to $8 an hour starting in January 2009 and $8.25 an hour in January 2010.  Assuming a 40-hour-work week, the average wage increase for those making minimum wage will be a little over $700 annually.

For most employers in the state, the bill will not have any impact because many workers receive more than the minimum wage.  For others who rely on workers at minimum wage, the bill could have a real impact; $700 or so per worker per year could affect those with thin profit margins.  However, others will certainly be able to afford the modest increase.

Although the bill did not have full bipartisan support, it did pass the General Assembly overwhelmingly. I would expect the Governor to sign the bill because a veto would likely be overturned by the General Assembly.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With just a few days to go, the list of pending bills in both the state Senate and House continues to grow. 

But it is worth updating readers on one uncontroversial employment law bill that passed the Senate over a month ago that remains pending. 

Specifically, Senate Bill 216 would renew a labor law that permitted 15-year-olds to work in grocery stores as baggers, shelf stockers and cashiers.  As readers will recall, this law expired last fall "apparently because lawmakers forgot to renew it."

The law has been on the books for 20 years, but had an automatic sunset provision in it that lawmakers overlooked when the session ended last year.

The new bill, which would also grant amnesty to those employers who have continued to employ 15-year-olds during the last six months or so, passed the Senate last month on the consent calendar and looked to have swift passage in the House. 

And perhaps it will pass in the closing days. But given the full agenda of the House, it would be a shame if the General Assembly overlooked this important law again.  House members would be wise to make sure this bill is put on the consent calendar again in the closing days.  It's passage will ensure valuable jobs for teenagers are open for years to come.

UPDATE 12 p.m.: The bill appears on the "Go List" for today, which is available here.  There are two amendments that may potentially be raised today regarding home-schooled teens and apprenticeships. While both topics are interesting, the bill ought to be passed in its original form; otherwise, it will need to be returned to the Senate for further consideration.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The focus for this term of the Connecticut General Assembly for employers and employees has been on the paid sick leave bill (still no action in the House as of May 3rd).

However, employers who have employees working on public works projects and manual labor on state or municipal building construction or repair contracts need to be aware of a bill that cleared both the Senate and House very early today (H.B. 5537).  The bill is expected to be signed into law shortly, will become effective January 1, 2009.  The vote tally in the Senate is available here.

Under current law, some of these employees must prove that they have completed a 10-hour construction safety and health course that meets federal OSHA Training Institute Standards. The new bill expands this training and expands the people who must receive training. 

The Office of Legislative Research has fairly detailed report available here:

First, it expands the construction safety training requirement to any public works project, which includes sewage and water treatment plants, site work, road and bridge work, parking lots, drainage systems, and other public projects.

Second, instead of applying the training requirement to all projects of $ 100,000 or more, the bill applies the existing prevailing wage project thresholds to the training requirement. This means the requirement kicks in for (1) repair and renovation projects of $ 100,000 or more and (2) new construction projects of $ 400,000 or more.

Furthermore, it removes the requirement that the proof of the training be sent to the labor commissioner. Presumably, the proof will be sent to the contracting agency paying for the prevailing wage project. ...

The bill also creates training requirement exceptions for employees of public service companies and commercial vehicle drivers who either pick up at or deliver cargo to public work projects.

It requires the labor commissioner to adopt implementing regulations by January 1, 2009. By law, regulations cannot take effect before the effective date of the act authorizing them.

A few notable items:

• The employees who must receive the training (which, under current law, is any employee "performing manual labor") is greater under the bill.  The bill states that a mechanic, laborer, or worker must complete the safety training course.
  
• Notably, according to the OLR, the safety training requirements "do not apply to employees of public service companies, which are defined in statute to include electric, electric distribution, gas, telephone, telegraph, pipeline, sewage, and water companies; cable franchise holders; and railroad companies."

With all the training requirements that exist for employers, employers should add this to their list if they are in the business of doing construction or repair work for the State of Connecticut. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Late Thursday night, the State Senate passed the Paid Sick Leave bill (S.B. 217) with various amendments including an exemption for some existing collective bargaining agreements.  The vote was a close one -- 20-16 -- and you can find the roll call here.

The bill would make Connecticut the first state to require employers of 50 or more, to allow workers to take 6½ paid sick days per year. It would also apply to municipalities.  One additional amendment that passed would limt the times when employee could use sick time for an illness of an employee or employee's child.

The bill now moves on to the House for further consideration, where nearly 40 legislators have publicly co-sponsored the bill already.  Some of the sponsors of the bill have predicted passage there, but its real future is unknown at this point, with the session winding down.  Debate in the Senate took two days and it is unclear if there is enough time left for the bill to pass. 

The Hartford Courant has a late report and reaction here:

[State Senator Edith] Prague called the bill a major boon to average working people, "especially single parents, like women, who have to go to work. They can't afford the luxury of staying home if they're sick. They need that day's pay to feed the kids ... and heat the house." ...

But opponents said the increasing business competition in a difficult economy is the reason that lawmakers should not approve the bill: It would put Connecticut at a disadvantage and cost the jobs of some of the very workers it is intended to help, they said.

The state's leading business lobbying group, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, has said the bill "would cost employers in dollars and productivity — a tough one-two punch in this weakening economy."

Various political blogs have started to chime in, including My Left Nutmeg here.  My prior coverage of the bill can be found here.

UPDATE: You can also find the CT News Junkie coverage of the bill here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. House of Representatives, as expected, passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act this afternoon.  The bill, which had already been approved by the Senate, now moves on to the White House, where the President is expected to sign the bill.  The bill's summary and status can be found here.The roll call vote at 12:40 p.m. can be found here.   It passed overwhelmingly.  (Guess which Representative opposed it.)

The New York Times, through an AP report, has the immediate coverage:

Companies would no longer be able to use genetic information like a person's predisposition for breast cancer, sickle cell or diabetes to make insurance or job decisions under a bill passed by Congress on Thursday.

The House voted 414-1 for the legislation a week after it passed the Senate on a 95-0 vote. The bill would bar health insurance companies from using genetic information to set premiums or determine enrollment eligibility. Similarly, employers could not use genetic information in hiring, firing or promotion decisions.

As I noted earlier this week, this bill is not expected to have a significant impact in Connecticut where there is already legislation on the books prohibiting discrmination based on genetic information.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the legislative session coming to a close next week, developments are heating up at a fast and furious pace.  I'll do some quick updating and then provide a more through review when time permits.

First, the State Senate debated the Paid Sick Leave bill (S.B. 217) yesterday for about an hour, when the debate apparently raised questions on its impact on collective bargaining agreements.  The Senate has been working off of some amendments as well, which can be located here.

The Hartford Courant has coverage here.   The CT News Junkie blog has a report earlier this week about it as well.

Second, the State Senate also passed amendments to the state's whistleblower law.  You can find my previous coverage here and you can view the Courant's coverage today of it here.

The bill, which is now listed at S.B. 335, is similar to a prior version proposed back in February and allows the Attorney General to intervene in some whistleblower cases.  The bill now moves on to the House for a vote. 

As I noted before, while the goals of the bill are laudable, the path that it takes to get there is troubling.  The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that an change in employment status (a transfer, for example) within three years of a person's complaint, is retaliatory. That creates a huge shield for employees and encourages them to file complaints -- even those that may not be warranted.

This proposal ignores what courts have been concluding over the years: that it is highly unlikely that an employer would wait a year -- much less three years -- to "retaliate" against such a complaint.  As the U.S. Supreme Court said a few years ago in Clark County Schools v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) in a unanimous, unsigned opinion:

The cases that accept mere temporal proximity between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima facie case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be "very close."... Action taken (as here) 20 months later suggests, by itself, no causality at all.

Given the highest court's reasoned conclusion that a transfer or firing taken 20 months after a person's complaint does not suggest a connection between the two, what is the rationale behind the proposed legislation that assumes such a connection up to 36 months later?

Unfortunately, the rationale is not likely to be explained or even debated as the bill moves forward.  Legislators will try to show that they are "protecting" whistleblowers, but in doing so, they are likely to create a mess that the courts will be left to clean up.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While the headlines have been focusing on criminal justice reform and now the state's projected deficit, a new "hate crime" bill  (S.B. 604) got passed and became a public act (P.A. 08-49) yesterday.  You can download it here.

The Act, which is effective October 1, 2008 is not found in Connecticut's penal code per se, but is found with Connecticut's discrimination statutes.  It amends Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-58 to add new subparagraph (d). This paragraph makes it a "discriminatory practice", punishable as either a misdemeanor or class D felony, to display nooses or simulation of nooses. 

In relevant part, the revisions to the statutes are underlined:

(a) It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section for any person to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability.

(d) Any person who places a noose or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, and with intent to intimidate or harass any other person on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, shall be in violation of subsection (a) of this section.

Why nooses? The Judiciary Committee's report indicates that it would strengthen Connecticut's hate crime laws. And indeed, in light of the Jena 6 incident last year, there seemed to be a greater recognition that nooses are particularly offensive to those in the African-American community, which is also noted in the report.  Indeed, the new law would, in essence, equate noose displays with cross-burning.

But the new act raises questions remains unanswered: Why include other categories that have nothing to do with race, including sexual orientation or blindness or physical disability (and why exclude mental disabilities?)   Isn't the point of nooses is that it has some relation to the historic symbol of racial lynching?

And are there really any incidents were people are using nooses to intimidate people based on their gender? I believe the answer is essentially no. Indeed, even back in 2000, the EEOC noted that workplace noose incidents were related to racial harassment cases, not gender cases. What is also striking about the new law is that it contrasts with the cross-burning section which has no reference to protected categories.

Regardless, I'm sure it also won't be too long before the statute is also used in employment discrimination cases to show Connecticut's strong "public policy" against nooses -- whether in the workplace or otherwise.  

And one point should continue to be emphasized for employers -- these types of incidents should not be tolerated in the workplace.  If an employer in Connecticut does have an incident where a noose is displayed, the employer should seek prompt legal advice as to how to address the situation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, while I was out on vacation, Congress acted on a bill that may have some interest in Connecticut. However, because Connecticut already has a similar bill already on the books, it will probably have a minor impact on employers.

The U.S. Senate approved of legislation that would prohibit genetic discrimination in the workplace.   As reported by the Manpower Employment Law Blog, The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) sailed through the Senate on a 95-0 vote.  A House vote is expected shortly; you can check on the bill status of H.R. 493 here. 
Among other things, GINA would:

• prohibit discrimination based on genetic information in hiring, firing, compensation and other employment decisions;
• prohibit employers from collecting genetic information through workplace genetic testing or other means, with very narrow exceptions (e.g., monitoring the effects of hazardous workplace exposures);
• prohibit health insurers and plans from requiring genetic testing and from discriminating based on genetic information in enrollment and premium-setting; and
• impose strict workplace confidentiality/disclosure rules on all genetic information.

Senator Christopher Dodd expressed his strong support for the bill and posted his comments to his website, which you can find here. 

However, for employers in Connecticut, this should be old news. Connecticut already has a law that prohibits discrimination based on genetic information so I don't anticipate that GINA, if passed, will a significant impact in Connecticut.  Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-60(a)(11) states that it is illegal:

     (11) For an employer, by the employer or the employer's agent, for an employment agency, by itself or its agent, or for any labor organization, by itself or its agent: (A) To request or require genetic information from an employee, person seeking employment or member, or (B) to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person on the basis of genetic information. For the purpose of this subdivision, "genetic information" means the information about genes, gene products or inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member.

To be sure, GINA has some additional provisions that will need to be looked at by employers in Connecticut.  But none of it is all that dramatic; Connecticut employers may want to await final passage of GINA before updating their policies on this issue. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Senate Bill 217, the Paid Sick Leave bill, which I have reported on here and here, passed the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly late last week, setting the stage for a possible Senate vote in the next few weeks.  Various blogs and website have set the stage for a possible showdown at the legislature.

The My Left Nutmeg blog shares its views on the bill and suggests that people can send an Apple Gram to their legislators to tell them to pass it. 

Four out of ten working people in Connecticut don't have a single paid sick day available to them all year. Workers who feel compelled to show up work slower and get others sick, increasing costs for employers. Those who can't make it to work lose income. About one in four parents with a child under one does not have any paid sick time. All of the top twenty most competitive economies in the world - except the U.S. - guarantee paid sick days for workers.

In Connecticut, a network of organizations coordinated by Working Families has launched the Everybody Benefits campaign, which backs Senate Bill 217, designed to guarantee that workers in medium to large companies can earn a few days of sick time each year. Last year, the bill passed the Senate, but never got a vote in the House. This week it passed the Judiciary Committee and moves to the Senate.

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) released a press release of their own saying that many businesses oppose the bill:

Connecticut businesses are urging state legislators to oppose SB-217 which mandates paid sick leave, because it would significantly increase business costs, make Connecticut companies less competitive, cause workplace disruptions and hurt our employees, not help them. The bill would hit small businesses and those that rely on part-time and seasonal help the hardest. ....

"This bill would require employers to provide paid sick leave to all hourly employees with indefinite carryover to future years, further increasing costs and seriously harming businesses in Connecticut as well as the state's economy,” said Bonnie Stewart, CBIA vice president of government affairs. “The bill targets smaller, service industry employers and seasonal companies — the ones that can least afford it.”

According to a recent Connecticut Business & Industry Association survey, the majority of employers (69 percent) offer paid sick leave to their employees. Stewart added that this bill is a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't allow businesses the flexibility to deal with the needs of their employees.

Both sides in this debate appear to be loading up for a battle.  Just a few weeks left to see who prevails in this legislative tussle.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

With one month to go in the shortened legislative session, there hasn't been a lot of action on various labor & employment bills.  Many of the bills I highlighted in the last two months haven't seen a lot of action or are still awaiting further votes.  This post will briefly summarize where some of the bills are based on the Bill Record Book. 

• The Workplace Bullying bill, Senate Bill 60, which I addressed here, appears to be going nowhere. There has been no committee action on it, unlike several others.  In my opinion, there are just too many issues that would need to be resolved and addressed to make the proposed bill a workable law. 
  
• Similarly, Senate Bill 61, which provides additional protections to whistleblowers hasn't gone anywhere yet either.  There has yet to be a hearing on it and no action appears to have been taken on it.  Some of my prior coverage is available here.
  
• On a different note, the bill to allow 15 year olds back into grocery stores, Senate Bill 216, passed the Senate last week.  This one seems like a sure thing to get House approval. For more background on this bill, click here for my prior coverage. 
  
• The Paid Sick Leave Bill, Senate Bill 217, is far from sick. I covered the bill's origins here.  Indeed, the Labor & Public Employee Committee has favorably voted the bill out to the Judiciary Committee on April 3, 2008.  

No significant bills relating to labor & employment law have been passed by both houses yet so I'll keep providing updates for the remainder of the session.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Because my employment law trial starts this week in state court, I've arranged for a series of (what I think are) great guest bloggers to talk about what's new and noteworthy in employment law. It's a nice opportunity for readers of the blog to hear a different perspective while at the same time, keeping all of you updated on interesting developments. Regular blog posting will resume in 2-3 weeks when my trial concludes. 

As I will say time and again, I'm extremely thankful to all the guest bloggers for contributing and I strongly encourage you to visit and explore their blogs.

In the meantime, the guest blogger for the day is Jon Hyman, the prolific writer of the Ohio Employer's Law Blog.  Jon is an attorney at Kohrman, Jackson and Krantz  where he does  employment law, but also works on various litigation matters as well.   Jon advises individuals and companies on a wide-range of employment, human relations, and litigation issues. This role frequently requires Jon’s service as an author and speaker on myriad employment-related issues. If you haven't checked out his blog, you're missing out on some valuable updates. 

Today, Jon introduces us to the Healthy Families Act legislation that has been introduced in Ohio and elsewhere around the county....

Legislatures around the country are beginning to seriously consider paid sick leave laws. Just recently, the D.C. legislature passed such a law, and Ohio will most likely have its law on the ballot in November for voters to decide.

Not to be outdone, Congress is also considering such a law, the Healthy Families Act. The HFA will grant all employees working for companies with 15 or more employees 7 paid days off per year for (1) their own physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition, (2) their own professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventive medical care, and (3) the same for an employee's child, parent, or spouse. Employees who work less than 30 hours per week or 1,500 total hours per year will receive a pro rated amount of paid time off.

Employers would have discretion to determine how employees accrue this paid leave, as long as it is at least quarterly. Employers cannot prohibit the carry over of 7 or less days per year.

The HFA will also allow for certification by a health care professional when an employee is out for more than 3 consecutive work days, an anti-retaliation provision, and a private right of action for aggrieved employees.

It also will forbid employers from counting the use of paid sick leave under a no-fault attendance policy. It is unclear if this prohibition applies only to paid leave under this statute, or any paid leave granted by an employer.

Section 11(a) of the HFA is what I believe to be the saving grace for most employers, and why I think the HFA will not result in monumental practical changes for the vast majority of companies that already provide paid time off if it passes.

That section provides: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish the obligation of an employer to comply with any contract, collective bargaining agreement, or any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater paid sick leave rights to employees or individuals than the rights established under this Act."

As I read that section, if a company has a leave policy that already provides for at least 7 paid sick days, it will not have to grant any additional paid leave.

The limited practical effect of this legislation notwithstanding, the cons of the HFA far outweigh its pros.

First and foremost, that last thing that businesses want is another statute under which employees will be able to sue, especially when it provides for double damages and attorneys fees.

Also take a look at Section 7(a)(1)(B):

It shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this Act, including ... using the taking of sick leave under this Act as a negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, promotion, or a disciplinary action.

 "Negative factor" is far too lenient of a standard, and very will could hamstring employers from taking legitimate action against any employee who is out for even a day with an illness.

Congress and state legislatures around the country should take a long, hard look at these serious deficiencies in the HFA, and should not merely knee-jerk vote in its favor because paid time off is viewed by most employees (and most of us are employees) as a "good thing."

If this statute becomes law in its current form, it will take a herculean effort by the Department of Labor to draft clear and comprehensive rules and regulations that make this law workable for businesses, instead of leaving myriad unanswered questions for the courts to sort out at the expense of those companies who will have to defend their individual interpretations.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

After a brief hiatus, Workplace Horizons blog is back with some interesting thoughts on the "Paid Sick Leave" bills pending nationwide and a new website related to the subject that I highlighted last week.  According to Richard, "It’s a pretty slick web site designed to promote the Healthy Families Act."

According to Workplace Horizons:

The Act, introduced in both the House and Senate in 2007, has not yet been voted on by either house of Congress. It would require employers with 15 or more employees to provide 7 days of paid sick leave for employees working 30 or more hours per week. Additionally, it would require a pro-rated number of days or hours of paid sick leave for employees who work less than 30 hours per week (or less than 1,500 hours per year) and allow employees to take leave for their own medical condition, doctor appointments, or preventative or diagnostic treatment. Employees could also use the leave to care for a family member with comparable needs. Leave would be calculated on an hourly basis or in the smallest increment that the employer’s payroll system uses.

Workplace Horizons was also kind enough to post on the workplace bullying legislation I discussed last week. 

It's nice to have Workplace Horizons back for its perspective after its long Foxwoods proceedings. 

On that same note, this blog is going to get a big sparse for the next few weeks.  I've got a trial upcoming in state court in another week or so that will preclude much posting for most of March.   (Need to pay the bills somehow.)  But rest assured that I'll post when I can and will certainly be back in full force after the trial.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Tuesday, I noted that the Paid Sick Leave Bill had been re-introduced this year and that it was "the one to watch" this year.

On Wednesday, February 27th, State Senator Edith Prague -- and others -- held a news conference to push for its passage. Christine Stuart, at CT News Junkie, has the details:

For the second year in a row, state Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, a dozen other Democratic legislators, along with the Working Families Party, are trying to pass legislation that forces companies with more than 25 employees to give their workers a chance to earn up to 6.5 sick days a year.

“We need to treat people like they’re human beings,” Prague said at an afternoon press conference. State Rep. Steve Fontana, D-North Haven, said, “I think this is legislation whose time has come.” Last year the bill passed the state Senate by a vote of 23 to 13, however, it never came to a vote in the House.

The Working Families Party has created a website devoted to this issue at www.everybodybenefits.org.  What's interesting is that this group presents this also as a public health issue, not only a worker fairness issue (though they do not cite in any obvious way, where their numbers are from).  The problem, according to the website, is:

Around 40% of working people in Connecticut don't get a single paid sick day all year long. Among low wage workers, that figure rises to more than 75%.  Only 20% of food service worker. Childcare, retail, and nursing workers are also less likely to have paid sick days.

Presenteeism - the phenomenon of employees coming in to work sick, but working less productively and possibly spreading illness - costs employers an estimated $255 per employee per year. That's more than the cost of guaranteeing paid sick days.

A hearing on the bill is scheduled for Thursday; details are provided in my prior post. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

The General Assembly's Labor & Public Employee Hearing on various labor bills went forward as scheduled on Tuesday.  Among the topics --  the workplace bullying bill that I first reported on on Monday.

Senate Bill 60 would create a private cause of action for workplace bullying. However, even if the bill passes the labor committee, it would still need to pass muster with the judiciary committee, according to state Senator Edith Prague.

The Hartford Courant had a report in Wednesday's editions:

The bill, which has the support of committee chair state Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, is actually a revised version of a similar bill that failed to reach a full vote of the assembly last year because of concerns about how it might affect businesses. In particular, opponents worried that the bill, which would allow workplace bullying victims to sue their tormentors, could expose employers to potential damages even if they had consistently tried to create a safe environment for workers.

The new legislation aims to protect employers who have acted in good faith by making them exempt from liability if they can show they took steps to prevent bullying behavior on the part of individual employees or supervisors.

Last week, The Word on Employment Law discussed the possibility that these types of bills were being introduced across the United States.  Earlier this month, Ohio Employer's Law Blog touched the subject as well.  But for a more in-depth look at the subject, the ABA Journal did a nice piece earlier this month. The article quotes from a Tennessee case that perhaps touches on the problem with workplace bullying laws and perhaps over-legislating the workplace. 

The fact that a supervisor is mean, hard to get along with, overbearing, belligerent or otherwise hostile and abusive, does not violate civil rights statutes...

It'll be interesting to see what happens with this bill in the upcoming months. And for the record, i don't think hiring bodyguards for the workplace, as the movie poster suggests, is a good idea.  Stay tuned.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

As I posted yesterday, the Connecticut General Assembly is back in session. The Labor & Public Employees Committee is busy holding hearings this week on various bills now pending before the General Assembly.

One batch of bills is up for consideration this afternoon. A second batch is up for a hearing this Thursday at 2:30 p.m.  The February 28th Hearing agenda can be found here.  The hearing is at 2:30 in Room 2D of the Legislative Office Building.  The main topics of the February 28th hearing  purport to be public employees and unemployment compensation.

Among the notable bills being considered:

• Senate Bill 217 (Employers with 25+ employees would be required to provide up to 52 hours of paid sick leave to employees);
• Senate Bill 38 (which would provide paid vacation time, sick leave and personal leave for Connecticut State's attorneys);
• Senate Bill 56 (which would create a task force to address misclassification of workers such as the distinctions between exempt/non-exempt or employee/independent contractor).

For employers, Senate Bill 217 is the one to watch.  Proposals for paid sick leave have been making the rounds in various states with only modest success thus far.  It'll be interesting to see how far this bill actually gets this year.

We'll look at some of these bills more in-depth over the upcoming weeks and months as debate on the bills begins.  But given the General Assembly is in a short session, it's still an open question as to what will actually get passed this year.

I should also note that other committees also consider bills that look at the employer/employee relationship. For example, the Judiciary Committee has a bill (Senate Bill 328) that would increase jury duty pay and require employers to be more involved in the system.  As significant developments arise, I will try to keep tabs on them throughout the legislative session.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

With the Connecticut General Assembly back in session this month for its short session, the Labor & Public Employees Committee has scheduled two hearings this week -- February 26th at 2 p.m. and February 28th at 2:30 p.m. -- to consider a variety of bills now being proposed.  The agendas for each can be found here and here. 

The February 26th Hearing overall, will be hearing bills related to minimum wage, the Department of Labor, unemployment compensation and prevailing wages.  Among the more notable of the bills being discussed is Senate Bill 216 which would fix a law that expired last fall that allows 15-year-olds to work in grocery stores as baggers, cashiers and shelf stockers. As I reported last fall, lawmakers simply forgot to renew it.  The bill would also grant immunity to employers who kept those 15-year-olds employed from last fall until present because of the legislative slipup.

Other notable bills being considered:

• House Bill 5105 (which would increase minimum wage to $8.00 per hour effective January 1, 2009);
• Senate Bill 60 (which would create a new private cause of action for bullying in the workplace);
• House Bill  5113 (which would regulate "professional service organizations" , or situations where there is a "coemployment relationship in which all or a majority of the employees providing services to a client or to a division or work unit of a client are covered employee");
• House Bill 5114 (which would allow employers to pay its employees via a debit card, instead of a check).

The sleeper bill of these, in my view, is House Bill 5114.  This would be a huge benefit to the thousands of workers who do not have their own checking account.  Many of these people pay large check cashing fees.  The debit card might allow these employees to use the card directly like a VISA or Mastercard.  Employers are allowed to use these for items such as Health Savings Accounts, so why not paychecks (so long as it remains the choice of the employee)?

I should also note that Senate Bill 216 should be a no-brainer as well.  Having sunset provisions, like the one in the prior statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-23) are of no use, if no one at the General Assembly keeps track of them. 

The February 26th Hearing begins at 2 p.m. in Room 2D of the Legislative Office Building and is open to the public.

I'll summarize the February 28th Hearing in an upcoming post. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

One of the bills in Congress this year that is expected to be heavily debated is the Employee Free Choice Act. 

What is it? Workplace Horizons has this take on it: "The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800; S. 1041) would amend the National Labor Relations Act to make it significantly easier for unions to organize employees, to require binding arbitration of first contracts after 120 days, and to stiffen penalties for certain unfair labor practices."

The AFL-CIO has an alternative take on it: "The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, would level the playing field for workers and employers and help rebuild America’s middle class. It would restore workers’ freedom to choose a union by: Establishing stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations; Providing mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes; Allowing employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation."

Obviously, how you feel about the proposal depends on whether you think the current system of union elections is broken.

One Connecticut Congressman, Joe Courtney, spoke this morning with the My Left Nutmeg blog with his thoughts on it. During a very interesting and insightful interview with Ken Krayeske, he voiced his strong support for the bill.

The Employee Free Choice Act is critical to make sure people can organize without recourse. It was one of my first speeches on the House floor. ...

If you go back to NLRA [the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1937], a card check was supposed to be the method towards getting union recognition. It was down the road that employers were given the option of requesting an election, moderated by the NLRB.

The law we voted on in the House would say that a union would be recognized with a majority of signature cards signed by members of the bargaining unit. If even a third, thirty-three percent,  The law changed so that employers don't have the opportunity to mandate an election. Otherwise, these hired guns, consultants come in where there is strong support for union with cards, and they end up turning the election in to a long drawn out process that defeats the election.

Rep. Courtney -- who represents District 2, which includes many towns in Eastern Connecticut including where the casinos are located -- had particularly strong words about the Foxwoods election.  As readers of this blog will recall, there has also been a heated battle going on with a union election at Foxwoods, including a multi-day hearing that we've covered here in many posts. 

The Foxwoods case is classic as to why this needs to pass. The UAW won that vote 60-40, with a healthy margin.

Then management is coming in there with a big hired gun [in front of the National Labor Relations Board].  They put on days of testimony about what the ballot said, "Do you support this union?"

Management was bringing in employees who claimed they couldn't read it, and said they had difficulties with the language.. The testimony was comical. The translators that management brought in were at the hearing. Inadvertently, someone would ask a question in English, and they would answer it before the translators could.

These were all card dealers, of course they understand English. But it is a textbook example of how they abuse the system to delay union victories. If you get unions to get the cards, we don't have to go through these hearings.

Rep. Courtney is a decent fellow and, by all accounts, is doing well representing a difficult district..  But is Rep. Courtney referring to the lawyers who defended Foxwoods as mere "hired guns" that ought to be criticized for defending their clients?

If that's the implication -- and its a bit unclear from the statement -- that seems particularly harsh and unnecessary.  Whatever one thinks about Foxwoods (and if you ask 100 people, you'll get 100 opinions), it's unfair to challenge the attorneys merely for representing their client.  Our system of justice demands that each party -- no matter how disliked -- be given a full and fair opportunity.  Foxwoods should be no exception.

Moreover, it's not like the Foxwoods' appeal on the language issue was frivolous.  Indeed here, even the Hearing Officer stated that he would've handled the election differently and translated the ballots at issue.  Given the high burden of proof necessary to overturn an election, it's probably not enough to carry the day but we'll have to wait a few more weeks until the decision on the election is issued.

In the meantime, Rep. Courtney is obviously willing to keep pushing the Employee Free Choice Act.  How far will that battle take him? We'll just have to wait to find out.  However, even he suggests some excitement ahead: "The Card Check Act, that is the battle to be watching."

(H/T My Left Nutmeg)

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

With the General Assembly back in session this month, one group is hoping to place additional protection against transsexual and transgender di