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

For non-exempt employees (in other words, those employees eligible for overtime), a common question is whether an employee should be paid for commuting time.  The answer to that question is typically no.

Now suppose the employee carries their work files in a briefcase to and from work, does that change the analysis? According to a recent Second Circuit decision (which covers employers in Connecticut, New York and Vermont), the answer is still no.   In doing so, the Second Circuit in Singh v. City of New York has clarified the limited circumstances when an employee may be paid for their commuting time. 

When is that? Well, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the employee must engage in work for the employer's benefit at the employer's request, in order for commuting time to be compensable.  In addition, if an employer's policies increase that commuting time by a trivial amount, the employee is still not entitled to be paid under the FLSA.  

When is work required during a commute? When the employee's work during that time is integral and indispensable. It typically depends on whether the time is spent predominantly for the benefit of the employer ("predominant benefit test"). For commuting, the Second Circuit indicated that the:

appropriate application of the predominant benefit test is whether an employer's restrictions hinder the employees' ability to use their commuting time as they otherwise would have had there been no work-related restrictions.

For employers, and particularly with the addition of BlackBerrys, this case emphasizes that the employer should review its policies and practices to ensure that commuting time remains non-compensable.  In particular, the employer can emphasize that non-exempt employees should not perform work during their commute. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week, the U.S. Department of Labor updated their website and provided some new online tools to help employers figure out which recordkeeping, reporting and notice requirements apply to them. 

According to the DOL:

The new FirstStep Recordkeeping, Reporting and Notices elaws Advisor has been integrated into a FirstStep suite of advisors that also includes the revised and expanded FirstStep Poster Advisor and FirstStep Employment Law Overview Advisor.

"These Internet tools will make it easier for small business employers to learn about and comply with the federal laws that apply to them," said Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao.

However, employers in Connecticut using these tools should be cautious.  There are additional requirements that employers in Connecticut that may apply and some are stricter than the federal rules.

Because of this, employers should use the department's online tools as a resources, but should followup with an attorney or the Connecticut Department of Labor about additional requirements that may apply.

(H/T Delaware Employment Law Blog)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A few weeks ago, I posted on a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court that ruled that an order denying class certification is not an appealable final judgment. I said back then that the case, Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, gives employers and other defendants in class actions, "an important arrow in their quiver of defending against class action cases."

This week,the Hartford Business Journal discussed the case in some detail with some good information about the underlying claims raised by the wait staff. 

The dispute between the food servers and restaurants hinges on the differences in the hourly wages paid to waiters and other non-wait staff. Restaurants are allowed to pay waiters below minimum wage levels, reducing wait staff pay by a 29.4 percent “tip credit,” which is based on the assumption that waiters are expected to earn much of their income from tips.

Food servers claim that their wallets take a hit when employers assign them tasks that don’t include waiting tables, such as brewing coffee, rolling napkins or cleaning restrooms.
For that reason, servers employed by T. G. I. Friday’s and Friendly’s want to be paid for the extra tasks they perform while on the job, so they have been working together to form class-action groups to fight restaurants.

The reporter from the story happened to call me for my views on the case, which I was happy to share with her. You can check out my quotes from the story here.  

Without sounding like I'm trying to fawn over them, the HBJ really is an under-appreciated publication that fills a good niche on business news in the state.  If you aren't looking at their site, you are really missing out on some great little nuggets about Connecticut business.

The case also highlights the importance of following wage rules carefully. The application of a "tip credit" isn't exactly the easiest formula for employers to apply in practice. Employers who may pay under minimum wage for one reason or another should consider themselves targets for potential claims and should ensure that they are in full compliance with the wage and hour laws.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Continuing a very busy Wednesday in employment law (where were all these cases earlier this month?), the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a noteworthy decision on a few different wage issues. Because of time limitations, I'll address the case in a few separate posts.

The case, Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc. et al. , was argued to the Court in February 2007 (that is not a typo) and finally released on Wednesday (though it won't be "official" until March 4, 2008). 

There are lots of interesting employment issues in the case, but what immediately jumps out at me is the court's holding that an employee who is provided advances on commissions, does not need repay those advances when that employee's employment ends, even if the actual commissions did not amount to the advances.  The Court's ruling assumes that the employment agreement in place is silent on the issue of repayment.

The Court, in a 4-1 decision, adopts a view in a majority of other states that says that simply using the words "draw" or "advance" in an employment agreement is insufficient to establish a contractual obligation to repay those advances upon the end of employment.

We agree with the majority of courts that the mere use of the terms ‘‘draw’’ or ‘‘advance’’ in an employment agreement is not sufficient to establish the parties’ intent that the employee is obligated to repay the excess advances.

In arriving at the general rule that an employer may not recover excess advances unless an express or implied agreement to repay is established, many courts have reasoned that because the employer usually drafts the employment agreement, it easily may include language in the agreement obligating the employee to repay any advances that exceed commissions. ...

We therefore agree with the majority of jurisdictions that ‘‘absent a contractual provision expressly holding [an employee] personally liable for advances, [an
employer] must show that [the employee], by his [or her] conduct, exhibited an intent to be held personally liable for the repayment of the advances.’’ ...This rule is consistent with the ‘‘well settled judicial reluctance to cause a forfeiture of money already received unless it convincingly appears that such a result was intended by the parties. . . .’’

This decision has the potential to have a significant impact for employers in Connecticut.  What the court appears to be saying is that it is fine for an employer to say explicitly in an offer letter or employment agreement that the employee must repay the advances on commissions upon termination of employment, but in the absence of that provision, the employee is not obligated to do so. 

For employers in Connecticut, the case suggests an obvious course of action as well. Employers may want to consider having an explicit "repayment" provision in their offer letters and employment agreement for those employees who receive an advance or draw on commission.  Does this mean that existing agreements should be modified to add this provision? It may be something to consider.

There's more to this topic, and the decision in general. And, when time permits, I'll provide some additional thoughts.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Connecticut Supreme Court, in a decision released today, ruled today that an order denying class certification is not an appealable final judgment.  The case, Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, gives employers and other defendants in class actions, an important arrow in their quiver of defending against class action cases. 

In Palmer, thirty-seven waiters or waitresses employed by Friendly's, sought certification as a class to pursue their claims that their employer had ‘‘failed to pay servers the hourly, minimum wage mandated by General Statutes § 31-60 because the defendant unlawfully deducted ‘tip credits’
from servers’ wages’’ for work that was ‘‘non-service’’ in nature. The potential class included ‘‘all current or former servers’’ at the defendant’s forty-eight restaurants in Connecticut ‘‘against whose wages tip credits were subtracted.’’

 According to the Court:

The plaintiffs’ complaint arose from the defendant’s alleged violation of § 31-62-E4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which governs the payment
of minimum wage for ‘‘[d]iversified employment within the restaurant industry . . . .’ The complaint
alleges that the defendant ‘‘failed to definitely segregate all of the time spent performing ‘non-service’ duties and nevertheless took a ‘tip credit’ with respect to most of the hours worked by [the plaintiffs] and the class members and failed to compensate them at the required full minimum wage for their entire shift.’

The Superior Court denied certification of the class and the Appellate Court found that such a ruling was non-appealable -- a decision affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

I'll look at the underlying wage issue another day, but for now, the Supreme Court's decision will be applicable in all sorts of employment-type class actions filed in state court. 

For employers, plaintiffs will not be able to use the threat of an immediate appeal for settlement purposes, while the employers will also have an extra incentive for defeating class certification. If that decision cannot be appealed until much later (including a verdict), much of the "value" of the class action will be diminished.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Second Circuit released an important decision today that sets forth some new groundrules for employers and particularly placement agencies to be aware of in paying employees overtime.  In doing so, the court has distinguished the long-standing Supreme Court case of Tennessee Coal Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123 (321 U.S. 590) (1944) and, according to the Court's own reasoning, has created a split in the circuits.

The short issue of the case is whether employees must be paid overtime wages for work that their employer has prohibited and does not desire. The Court indicates that this is a matter of first impression and answers the question in the affirmative.

The case, Chao v. Gotham Registry, Inc. (available here) is ostensibly about a decision denying a contempt order against an employer.  While the Court upholds the decision denying the contempt order, it does by finding that the employer was dealing with a novel question and that it should not be punished for coming to a wrong conclusion.

The Court's analysis is lengthy but it has summarized the facts and its decision here:

A typical Gotham [employer] placement begins when one of its client hospitals requests a nurse to fill a temporary vacancy or to support hospital personnel during a peak period. Gotham then offers the assignment to a nurse on its register, and the nurse who accepts the position reports directly to the hospital. The nurse is required to sign in and out on daily time sheets, which are compiled and reviewed by the hospital and forwarded to Gotham each week. Gotham is not permitted to go on hospital premises to verify the nurse's hours or otherwise supervise his or her performance. The hospital  pays Gotham an hourly fee multiplied by the number of hours worked by the nurse and Gotham pays most of this money to the nurse.

Until the early 1990s, Gotham did not pay its nurses overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek because it viewed the nurses as independent contractors. After the Department of Labor commenced an enforcement action in 1992 against the staffing agency asserting that its practice of paying nurses straight-time wages for overtime hours violated the Act, Gotham consented to treat the nurses on its register as employees for purposes of the Act. ...

As Gotham's clients do not pay Gotham a premium for overtime hours in all cases, Gotham's promise to abide by the Act quickly proved expensive. After seeking advice of counsel, the staffing agency adopted a policy designed to check unauthorized overtime or, failing that, insulate itself from claims for time and one-half compensation for unauthorized hours. Gotham's overtime policy is printed on the time sheets completed by its nurses and reads: "You must notify GOTHAM in advance and receive authorization from GOTHAM for any shift or partial shift that will bring your total hours to more than 40 hours in any given week. If you fail to do so you will not be paid overtime rates for those hours."

In the course of their assignments at client hospitals, Gotham nurses are sometimes asked to work overtime by hospital staff. Nurses who agree to work an unscheduled shift will on occasion contact Gotham first to request approval in compliance with Gotham's rule. If Gotham authorizes an assignment, the nurse is guaranteed premium wages for any resulting overtime. But three out of four approval requests are denied. At other times, nurses accept unscheduled shifts without obtaining the staffing agency's approval. When these nurses report their overtime for the preceding week, Gotham attempts to negotiate with the hospital to procure an enhanced fee for the overtime hours already worked. If Gotham succeeds -- as it does ten percent of the time -- it pays the nurse time and one-half wages for the unauthorized overtime hours. Otherwise, the nurse receives straight-time wages for the extra hours worked.

It is this scenario that gives rise to the Secretary's contention that Gotham's overtime practices violate 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) and, by extension, the 1994 consent judgment....

 The Secretary challenges that portion of the district court's March 20, 2006 judgment that denies her petition for 8 civil contempt against Gotham. That court believed the unauthorized hours did not constitute work under the Act or, if these were working hours, the legal question was too much in doubt to warrant civil contempt. On this appeal the Secretary presents us with two questions: first, whether Gotham's overtime practices violate the Act; and second, if so, whether the violation provides an adequate basis for civil contempt. We think the trial court erred in labeling the nurses' overtime hours as anything other than work and answer the first question in the affirmative. But because we believe Gotham acted on a reasonable interpretation of then unsettled law, we answer the second question in the negative, and affirm the district court's judgment on the alternative ground that the Secretary did not meet her burden to prove contempt.

There is also a thoughtful concurrence by Chief Judge Jacobs as well.  He chides the majority for its reasoning:

I cannot sign the majority opinion because it holds  that Gotham’s practice violates the FLSA--though Gotham could not be expected to know this until so advised by the majority’s ambitious, consequential and dubious rulings.

As this case is analyzed, I'm sure much will be written about this in the upcoming days.  For now, the key takeaway from the case is that for placement agencies in particular that may not pay overtime based on a similar policy to Gotham, those agencies should review those policies and practices and get legal advice. 

I'll post more later in the week as the analysis comes in.

UPDATE: The Second Circuit Blog has another summary of the case available here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The latest news trend has been to report that wage & hour claims are the new "in" lawsuit filed by employment attorneys.  However, the cost of bringing such a lawsuit may still be onerous for some employees.

That's where the state's legal services organizations routinely fill the gap by offering their services free to people in need of an attorney.  Two new federal lawsuits filed on the same day last week by two different legal services groups in the state, show that these groups are not afraid to tackle employment issues and are doing so with increased frequency. 

(As always, readers are cautioned that the complaints contain mere allegations, not proven facts.)

In Morales v. Cancun Charlie's Restaurant, the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services represents a kitchen worker for a popular Milford restaurant.  (The Jerome N. Frank Legal Services organization is run by the Yale Law School.)  The Complaint alleges that the employee regularly worked over 100 hours per week and did not receive overtime.  The Complaint also alleges that he did not receive the appropriate minimum wage.  No response has yet been filed.

This is not a one-time gig for the Yale Law School legal services group.  For example, last month, the group brought a nearly identical claim against another Connecticut restaurant, the Mianus River Tavern, on behalf of two workers. Although the restaurant closed earlier this year, the Complaint alleged that these two workers did not receive any overtime for their work over the years. 

The Complaint in Godoy v. D&S Remodeling, LLC contains very similiar allegations as well and was also filed last week. Brought by Connecticut Legal Services , on behalf of 12 employees, the lawsuit alleges that these laborers for a construction company did not receive their wages as promised by the employer. The complaint also alleges that overtime and minimum wages were not paid for these individuals at various times.  No response by the employer has been filed yet either.

Will the employers raise as a defense the possible undocumented status of the employees? (The Complaints are silent as to whether these workers were authorized to work -- though no inference should be drawn on this without additional facts.)  The law on this is far from resolved. In 2002, the Supreme Court in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (U.S., No. 00-1595, 3/27/02), determined that the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") could not award backpay to undocumented aliens for violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") But the Department of Labor and other groups have suggested the the law is different for violations of federal discrimination laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). 

In any event, these new lawsuits should continue to serve as a cautionary tale for service industry companies in Connecticut such as restaurants and constructuion companies.  The overtime laws are, what they say they are.  Ensuring strict complaince with the law will remove lots of headaches down the road.  Keep good records, treat employees fairly and fix past mistakes where necessary.

While lawsuits involving the Legal Services groups may not "feel" like the typical employee-side attorney, they have the resources and the energy to ensure that these cases proceed like an ordinary lawsuit. These lawsuits should not be taken lightly. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We all love surveys and rankings.  From Family Feud to U.S. News School Rankings to American Idol - we love to know who is up, who is down, who is the best and who is the worst.

But some surveys and rankings just don't add up.  Last week, a group calling itself the Alliance for Worker Freedom, ranked each state on an Index of "worker freedom".  (The group, according to its website, "was founded in 2004 to combat anti-worker, pro-union legislation and educate the public about the plight to protect workers rights.")  It contends that the "2007 Index of Worker Freedom (IWF) is the first state-by-state comparative study that measures the level of worker freedom by analyzing actual policy as well as quantitative state data."

And how does Connecticut rank, according to the survey? Survey says: Dead last, with a letter grade of "F". 

What does this mean? Beats me. I can't make any sense out of it.  For example, the state receives zero points because its minimum wage is above the federal minimum wage. Huh? Certainly, in Connecticut, where the cost of living is much higher -- it hardly seems "anti-worker" to have the minimum wage be $7.65.  And Ohio, which has a higher percentage of union workers than Connecticut, receives a "C+", so go figure.

And therein lies the tragedy with surveys like this. They do little to educate the public about the labor and employment facts of a particular state, relying only on an easy to remember "grade system".  

(Hat Tip: Workplace Horizons)

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

It has been over a year since the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that where a public employee speaks as an employee and not a public citizen, such speech is not protected under the First Amendment. 

Courts applying the decision have tried to impart some parameters to the Court's decision such as whether an employee's job description is "controlling" as to what those job duties actually are.    (One issue not yet resolved-- and the subject of a future blog post -- is the question of whether Garcetti applies to employees at private companies.  A split in authority has been developing in the state courts on that issue, although the majority appears to answer that question "yes".) 

One interesting case came down from the U.S. District Court in Connecticut last month.  In O'Dea v. Shea, et al, the court granted a state agency's motion for summary judgment where the employee claimed that she was given a poor performance review in violation of her First Amendment rights.  

But the reasoning behind the decision shows that Connecticut courts have begun to apply the Supreme Court's ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The background of the case is straightforward:

• The Plaintiff became Director of Acute Nursing at Blue Hills Hospital in central Connecticut.
• In the spring of 2004, her supervisor purchased refurbished used furniture for the unit. 
• According to the plaintiff, she complained that bringing in used furniture into the facility would lead to more insect infestations. 
• In May 2004, the plaintiff received a "satisfactory" rating on her performance review and sued on that basis. 

Rather than address the issue of an adverse job action (which would seem to be the "easier" of the questions), the court ruled that Garcetti foreclosed her case.  "An Employee may still be performing his job when he speaks, even if that expression is not demanded of him."  The court emphasized, thus, that courts should not look at formal job descriptions but rather to the "practical" considerations of an employee's job.  Thus, the court -- in essence -- found that the job description was not dispositive of the issue.

Because the court concluded that the employee raised her concerns in her "professional capacity" as an employee, and not as a private citizen, her speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

The case reinforces the notion that First Amendment claims (including those brought under comparable state laws) by employees face an uphill battle.  For the time being, not even narrowly drafted job position descriptions appear to be able to defeat a defense that the employee's comments were in the course of his/her duties.

For employers that are considering revising an employee's job duties or position description, it makes sense to include a reference to reporting safety or other concerns (if that is a legitimate part of the job). Although the employer may believe that this is implicit in particular jobs, it is helpful to have this established at a neutral point in time in writing -- rather than as a company policy.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

For employment lawyers and HR professionals, it's "old" news that overtime lawsuits are a major concern.  Business Week picks up on that trend in next week's Cover Story entitled: "Wage Wars: Does your Boss Owe You Overtime". 

According to the article:

No one tracks precise figures, but lawyers on both sides estimate that over the last few years companies have collectively paid out more than $1 billion annually to resolve these claims, which are usually brought on behalf of large groups of employees.

Yes, you read that right. A BILLION dollars. 

Is this estimate true? Who knows.  But considering that the Labor Department estimates that 86 percent of the workforce is subject to overtime rules, that number suggests that there may still be lots of other potential lawsuits out there.  Connecticut has had no shortage of these lawsuits either. 

What's an employer to do? Clearly, some pro-active steps are always in order. 

• Audit your exempt employees.  Go over job descriptions and compare that with actual duties.  Sometimes "managers" are just glorified sales workers.
• Take seriously any complaints by employees about their overtime.  If there is a problem, odds are the complaining employee isn't the only one with the problem.  And that means the potential for a class action case. 
  
• Educate your Human Resource personnel and, even better, your payroll people about the overtime rules.  In particular, even if people are receiving overtime, make sure its calculated correctly.
• When in doubt, get advice.  These issues never get "better" overtime. If anything, when overtime issues are allowed to fester, the risk for companies increases substantially.  Working with an attorney and payroll personnel to comply with the law with ensure that the little issues don't turn into big ones. 
  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Earlier this week, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided Malan v. University of New Haven Police Department, an important decision for employers to be aware of when dispensing with job references.  In an earlier post, we discussed how the court created a qualified privilege for such references. 

So what questions did the court leave open? Well, the old expression when it comes to legal decisions (and, for that matter, financial statements) is to always check the footnotes. 

Checking footnote 8 reveals that the court left open the question as to what would defeat the privilege. 

• ‘[W]e need not decide whether, in a defamation action such as this one, a plaintiff could prove actual malice to defeat the qualified privilege on some lesser showing of recklessness."

But the court goes point out that it is not deciding whether other ways to defeat the qualified privilege will work either.

• "We also need not decide whether a plaintiff alleging defamation could overcome the qualified privilege without proving actual malice, by proving a lack of good faith on the part of the employer. "
  
• "Finally, we need not decide whether a plaintiff could overcome the qualified privilege without proving actual malice, by proving that the defamatory statement had been published to others."

What does this all mean? Well, for starters, it means potential litigation on this issue.  But more important, it suggests that if the employer can show that the job references were made "in good faith", that may go a long way towards maintaining the qualified privilege.  (An honest appraisal will also defeat a defamation claim by being "truthful".)

But the last note suggests that it is an open question as to whether a defamatory comment in a job reference could defeat the qualified privilege, just by being published, without even a showing a lack of good faith.  That type of approach would seem to significantly weaken the qualified privilege's scope -- something that the court took great pains to set up in this case.  Given the court's unanimous decision setting up the qualified privilege, it would be unlikely the court would undercut it by allowing the privilege to be defeated fairly readily. 

Nevertheless, for employers who want to provide job references for its current and former employees, the decision provides a good deal of protection.  

 (For advice on how to write a good job reference letter, the Employment Blawg has a very good article today with several practical links.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Hartford Courant has a lengthy piece today about the rise and fall of the Mortgage Lenders Network.  From an employment perspective, the piece recounts how the Connecticut Department of Labor came across one of the largest cases in the state of a company failing to pay wages, at least $1.5 million. 

Gary Pechie, the director of the state Department of Labor's wages and workplace standards division, was used to dealing with minor cases of businesses - the pizza shops, the independent grocers - who didn't pay their employees.

He rarely saw a case as a big as MLN. High-flying loan officers had been stiffed out of thousands of dollars, some hundreds of thousands, in commissions. And the complaints kept coming in.

Pechie sent two wage enforcement agents down to MLN on Jan. 23.

One of those agents, Frank Royce, had 17 years on the job. He and agent Mike Witkowski pulled up at MLN in Middletown at about 10:30. Human resources director Gary Porter told the agents that the company was "experiencing some problems" and that it wasn't clear "if or when some of the employees would be paid."

Porter produced a partial list. Royce did a little mental math to figure out what employees were owed. He came up with about $1.5 million. Later in the day, Porter came up with more.

When he and Witkowski got back in the car, Royce was quiet for a moment. Then he spoke.

"Wow," he said. "This is going to be big."

The article goes on to report that:

On March 9, the labor department asked the chief state's attorney to issue a warrant for [MLN head Mitchell] Heffernan's arrest for failing to pay nearly $3 million in wages, mostly commissions. Failing to pay wages in Connecticut is a Class D felony and can lead to jail time, fines or both....

[The DOL] and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal pursued the criminal charge in Connecticut. Heffernan fought the state's right to seek such a warrant while MLN was in bankruptcy. After a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that the matter didn't belong in that court, Heffernan appealed. A trial is pending on the legal question.

A look at the actual court documents reveals some more details and, from a legal perspective, Heffernan's tactics have staved off action by the DOL.  So far, it appears to have bought him several more months of legal limbo.

Upon learning of potential criminal charges against him, Heffernan filed a motion to enjoin the state from criminal prosecution.   The State of Connecticut, led by AAG Robert Clark, filed its objection on April 5, 2007.  Heffernan filed a supplemental brief a few days later with many more details and claiming that the criminal prosecution was a result of intense media scrutiny.  On April 10, 2007, the bankruptcy court denied Heffernan's request.

However, Heffernan's appeal of that decision has bought more time for him.  He appealed to the District Court of Delaware.  A briefing schedule reveals that it is unlikely the state will get any resolution of this matter until next year because final briefs are not due until late December 2007.  (It is unclear where the Courant's notion of a trial comes into play; the scheduling order of the court only referred to motion practice.) Because of the elevation of the assigned District Court judge to the matter (Judge Kent A. Jordan), the case does not yet have a district court judge formally assigned to it, which may further delay resolution of this matter. 

For MLN workers, the case is surely a frustrating one.  But the state's continued pursuit of this employer demonstrates that failing to pay wages is one type of action that the state won't tolerate. For employers in the state, its a good lesson and one that more employers would be wise to follow. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For many years, the Connecticut Department of Labor website just looked, well, a bit on the outdated side.  But lo and behold, the agency freshened things up a bit lately.  

They've introduced a new logo and new typeface.

After digging around for a few minutes, the content on the site has, unfortunately, not been updated in any major way.  But for those who have a difficult time still navigating the site, there is a useful "search" box on the upper right hand side of the page.  Not as good as Google, but it gets the job done.  

Notably, the DOL isn't the only agency that invested in a new logo. The CHRO released its new logo recently as well.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)