I was going to save this post for the Yankees run into the World Series, but with the Yankees losing last night, it seems quite possible that they might not get there this year.
Employment law contracts typically are not that complex. Oh sure, they may LOOK complex but most of the time, you build
Yesterday, a group of workers at some of the travel plazas in Connecticut, along with members of Local 32BJ of SEIU, rallied to protest “wage theft” and call for unionization of the employees who work there, including fast-food workers.
The issues the group is raising — at least that have been reported by the
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Janus v. AFSCME (download here) reversed 40 years of labor law precedent and concluded that requiring public employees to pay “agency fees” for labor unions that they don’t want to belong to violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Previously, prior cases have banned forcing public sector
In an important 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning held, for the first time, that class or collective action waivers, particularly in wage/hour cases, and contained in arbitration agreements between employers and employees are valid and enforceable.
Because wage and hour class and collective actions are quite costly for employers to defend
The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.
So said the economist Milton Friedman. At least the Internet says he said it. Must be true, right?
Anyways, before we turn the page to 2018, let’s take a look back at the predictions I laid out on January
My colleague, Jarad Lucan, returns today with a very special post on a ground-breaking week at the NLRB. For Connecticut employers, the decisions change a lot of what has been going on at the NLRB for the last several years.
Back in January of 2013, I wrote an article for the Connecticut Law Tribune entitled
My law partner, Gabe Jiran, talks today about whether it’s all that easy to change the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Is it just as easy as a vote? Or does it require something more? The answer has implications for all employers.
With all of the talk about the financial difficulties faced by the
For the last six years, you haven’t seen much on this blog about changes to federal employment laws because, well, there just weren’t any. What we DID see, however, were changes to regulations and enforcement orders.
Nearly six months into the new Trump administration, we’re now starting to see significant shifts in the federal regulatory
My colleague Gary Starr returns today with a decision from the Second Circuit (which covers Connecticut) that may just surprise you. Then again, if you’ve been following this line of reasoning, perhaps not.
There are outer limits to insulting speech, but a recent decision seems to indicate that it is really really far out there.
There haven’t been a lot of stories about what Donald Trump would do as President when it comes to employment law issues. In part, that was due to the polls. But it was also due in part to the lack of policy details that his campaign put out on his website. Back in September, I