Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Insight on Labor & Employment Developments for Connecticut Businesses

The “Number Two” Reason on How to Avoid GINA Liability

Posted in Data Privacy, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Litigation

My colleague, Marc Herman, returns today to talk about a subject that doesn’t get a lot of attention but may as the technology makes genetic information more accessible.  But just because it’s more accessible, doesn’t make it right. Particularly if you suspect something “smelly” in your workplace. 

hermanIt’s not often that it comes up, but at a recent presentation, I discussed the implications of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 2008––“GINA”––with the audience.

A slight digression is necessary: GINA, a federal law, prohibits employers from making any employment-based decision (such as hiring, firing, disciplining, and promoting) based upon one’s genetic make-up. What is more, in an effort to preempt such conduct, GINA significantly restricts employers’ ability to obtain genetic information about employees and job applicants.

Back to the presentation: many members of my audience, despite hyperbolic, yet entertaining, fictional hypotheticals, found it incredibly difficult to imagine a real-life situation whereby an employer would actually violate GINA––my audience happened to be sticklers for realism.

Slightly disheartened that my hypotheticals lacked the believability factor of a John Grisham novel, I set out to locate a real-life GINA case that perfectly captured the substance of GINA, and exemplified the potential consequences of a violation. . . today, my quest was complete.

(Editor’s note: Eric Meyer of The Employer Handbook appears to be one of the first to talk about the case but it’s too good to pass up.)

Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds sued their Georgia employer––Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, LLC (“Atlas”)––for alleged violations of GINA. See Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, LLC .

The plaintiffs alleged that they were coerced, under the threat of discipline, into submitting cheek-swabs to assist Atlas in identifying a particular employee.  Why?

Because the employer suspected an employee was regularly, and shamelessly, defecating in one of Atlas’s shipping warehouses. According to the employer, the saliva sample was necessary to help identify fecal matter and track down the serial offender.

(The best footnote is from the court: “Apparently, this problem is not as rare as one might imagine.”)

After suing their employer for GINA violations, a Georgia Federal District Court concluded that the cheek-swab constituted a “genetic test” in violation of GINA; and a federal jury awarded the plaintiffs over $2,000,000.

So there you have it––a real-life case that highlights the serious implications stemming from a GINA violation.

. . . and, in case you’re wondering, neither of the plaintiffs was the serial defecator.

(Editor’s note again: Amazingly, this isn’t the first time “poop” has come up on the blog.  Specifically, you may recall the case from April 2008, in which an employee was given “The Book of Poop”.

Can Employee Display a Confederate Flag on Facebook as Free Speech? Or Can Employer Take Action?

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Litigation
Not the Confederate flag.

Not the Confederate flag.

There’s been lots of talk lately about the Confederate flag and its symbolism in the aftermath of the Charleston shootings.

But I wondered: How has this flag come up in the context of employment discrimination cases?

It’s actually referenced a bunch according to a quick search by Google.  A case out of Alabama alleged a racially hostile environment with displays of the flag in 2011.  Indeed, in another case, an employee complained that various co-workers wore lots of clothes adorned with the Confederate flag.

So yes, displays of the flag at work can cause issues and give rise to discrimination claims. Not a big surprise. (Notably, my search did not highlight any particular displays of the Confederate flag coming up in Connecticut state or federal court cases.)

Then I came across the case of Duke v. Hamil, a federal court case from 2014 out of Georgia, in which a university police officer was demoted after he displayed a Confederate flag on his Facebook page along with the phrase “It’s time for the second revolution.”  He claimed that being demoted violated his First Amendment speech rights.

And on that ground, you might be surprised that the court agreed with him — in part.  The court held the display was actually a matter of public concern and subject to the protections of the First Amendment:

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s speech can be fairly considered to relate to matters of political concern to the community because a Confederate flag can communicate an array of messages, among them various political or historical points of view. Combine this symbol with a statement calling for a revolution right after an election, and it is plausible that Plaintiff was expressing his dissatisfaction with Washington politicians. Even if Plaintiff had intended to convey a more radical message by using the Confederate flag and the word revolution, that message would also relate to political and social concerns of the community regardless of how unpopular or controversial that point of view may be. Plaintiff’s speech was thus a matter of public concern because it expressed disapproval of elected officials, certainly a topic “upon which `free and open debate is vital to informed decision-making by the electorate.'”

But before you start ranting about this decision on Reddit, there’s more. The court went on to apply a balancing test in which the plaintiff’s speech is weighed against the interest of the police to take action when speech “may unreasonably disrupt the efficient conduct of government operations.”

And this is where the employee’s claim ultimately falls apart”

Appearing to advocate revolution during a presidential election, and to associate that idea with a Confederate flag, Plaintiff likely sent a partisan, if not prejudicial, message to many in the … Police Department and the community it serves.

After carefully weighing these factors, the Court finds that the … Police Department’s interests outweigh Plaintiff’s interest in speaking. It is obvious that speech invoking revolution and the Confederate flag could convey a host of opinions that many would find offensive, especially when associated with a senior law enforcement official.

Even though the case concerned a police officer, it’s likely that other courts could come to similar conclusions. Any right to display the flag, will be outweighed by the disruption in the workplace.

Of course, Connecticut has its own flag case - Cotto v. United Technologies — in which the court had to look at whether an employee’s refusal to display an American flag was protected speech.  I’ve talked about that case here.

If you want to learn more about “good” and “bad” flag design, I highly recommend this discussion of vexillology here.

Intern Anti-Discrimination Bill Signed By Governor

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Legislative Developments
Malloy Signs Intern Anti-Discrimination Bill

Malloy Signs Intern Anti-Discrimination Bill

Capitol Watch – The Hartford Courant’s political site – tweeted the following yesterday:

And a review of the Governor’s website reflects that approval in the bill notification release. (I read them so you don’t have to!)

So, what does that mean for employers? Well, I’ve covered the bill before so I won’t recap everything here.

But the bill’s provisions now become effective October 1, 2015.  Thus, employers who regularly use interns should update their employee handbook and anti-harassment provisions to explicitly cover interns.

One of the other things to consider that hasn’t been discussed much is the extent to which the bill’s definition of “intern” may get adopted in the context of establishing whether an intern is really an “employee” for wage/hour purposes.

What do I mean? Well, back in 2012, I talked a lot about how employers could properly structure internship programs. In that post, I noted that there were six factors that the U.S. Department of Labor would look at:

  1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
  2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
  3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
  5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
  6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

Now, let’s compare this with the definition of “Intern” in the new anti-discrimination bill.  An intern is defined as an “individual who performs work for an employer for the purpose of training, provided”:

  1. the employer is not committed to hire the individual performing the work at the conclusion of the training period;
  2. the employer and the individual performing the work agree that the individual performing the work is not entitled to wages for the work performed; and
  3. the work performed:
    1. supplements training given in an educational environment that may enhance the employability of the individual,
    2. provides experience for the benefit of the individual,
    3. does not displace any employee of the employer,
    4. is performed under the supervision of the employer or an employee of the employer, and
    5. provides no immediate advantage to the employer providing the training and may occasionally impede the operations of the employer.

If you track each item carefully, you’ll notice that they are actually fairly similar. That’s a good thing.  While there are subtle differences, it’s unlikely that those differences will be meaningful in their application.

As a practical matter, that means employers that adopt the defintiion of “intern” in the new state statute are likely to be following the federal interpretation as well, reducing the risk of a wage/hour claim as well.

The bottom line, however, is that employers who just use interns without much worry as to the liability that using interns may create should rethink their practices. The new law is yet another area where new rules will make using those interns may expose employers to possible claims.  Is it a small risk? Perhaps. But small risks can turn into big ones if employers aren’t mindful.

Forget Employee Handbooks. How About an Update to Employment Laws?

Posted in Laws and Regulations, Wage & Hour

generalassemblySo, employers are probably tired of hearing me say that there’s always something to update in your employee handbook.

But if employers can do it, why can’t the legislature get its act together and clean up our existing laws to the ones that are relevant — or at least update them.

Instead, we get layers upon layers of laws that employers probably have no idea even exist.

Did you know that if you’re over 66 years old, you can’t work in a bowling alley or “photograph gallery” after 10 p.m.  Unless you “consent”.  (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-18.)

Let’s just ponder this one for a second. What is a “photograph gallery”? And what does it mean to “consent” to work? Can a 66 year old simply say that he’s not going to work late?

Then there is the ban on minors operating elevators — something I’ve talked about before.  Do we even have ANY elevator operators left in Connecticut? Is that even a job?

Then there is Sec. 31-43 which declares that “A public laundry shall be regarded as a manufacturing establishment within the provisions of the statutes. No laundry work shall be done in any public laundry in a room used as a sleeping or living room. No employer shall permit any person to work in his public laundry who is affected with pulmonary tuberculosis, a scrofulous or venereal disease or a communicable skin affection.”

Raise your hand if you even know what a “scrofulous” disease is.  And I’m pretty confident that bedrooms aren’t being used as public laundries anymore.  (And besides, various OSHA rules probably more than cover this.)

To their credit, the General Assembly finally eliminated the law regarding telegraph operators in 2014. But there are still plenty more laws on the books that could use a refresh.

Now that the legislature is done with the main business for the year, perhaps it can take this summer to review the other laws we have before adding some more.  It might just be a useful exercise.

 

 

 

CBA Annual Meeting Employment Law Recap: Ways to Avoid Getting Sued

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance
outten

Wayne Outten addresses conference

No one will ever mistake the Connecticut Legal Conference, run by the Connecticut Bar Association, for, say a glitzy gaming conference. But if you were fortunate to attend, you had the opportunity to hear some pretty good speakers talk about employment law for several hours.

Among the topics were a discussion on the Ellen Pao case, a discussion of the “Obama Effect” on race relations in the workplace, and a recap of other notable employment law cases from the last year.

For me, one of the most interesting discussions came from Wayne Outten – the incoming chair of the ABA Labor & Employment Law Section, and an accomplished plaintiff’s lawyer.  His talk focused on the lawyer as “problem-solver” which he said was critical in employment law cases.

He said that he often tells his clients (employees at companies) that self-help is their first best option.  It’s something I’ve preached as well. Once you get lawyers involved, you can never de-escalate a situation.

I’ve often preached about how employers need to be “fair” in the decisions. He said that for employees, he advocates the same thing.

But he also pulled back the curtain on the advice he gives to employees too; he plants a seed for employees to use in their negotiations (and again, it’s a well-known device).  He suggests that the employee tell the employer that he’s met with an employment lawyer and that lawyer said he or she has a good case, but that the employee is the “reasonable” one and wants to work things out directly with the employer.  It’s the veiled threat approach.

For those that haven’t heard Wayne speak before, he also provided a top 10 list that he’s given for many years on the ways for employers to avoid getting sued.  Among them:

  • Be fair and reasonable in all your dealings with employees.  Follow the Golden Rule: Treat every employee the way you would want to be treated — that is, fairly. Treat every employee so as to bring out the best that person has to offer.
  • Consider alternative dispute resolution techniques. When the foregoing approaches fail to avert or resolve a particular dispute, consider using such alternative dispute resolution procedures as peer review, early neutral evaluation, mediation and non-binding arbitration. (Use of ADR procedures should always be truly voluntary — not crammed down on employees as a condition of initial or continued employment.)
  • Be nice to plaintiffs’ attorneys. When you get a telephone call or letter from a lawyer representing a current or former employee, consider it an opportunity to engage in mutual problem-solving. Consider meeting with the employee and his or her counsel to exchange views on what happened and how the situation might be remedied. Such discussions may avert litigation.

For employers, there’s wisdom in this advice.

Revisiting Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA — Being “Effective”

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Class Actions, Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation

aslWhat does it really mean to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee who has a disability?

That’s a question I talk about a bunch with clients.  The employee may request one thing but the employer may think that another accommodation can accomplish close to the same thing, perhaps at a lower cost.  Who wins?

It’s not a new question; I’ve talked about it before here on the blog too.

But a recent case by the Second Circuit adds some layering to that discussion.  The case, Noll v. IBM, isn’t one that you’ll see on the front page of The New York Times.  I found out about it from the always reliable (and underrated) Wait a Second Blog.

That blog’s recap is appropriate here:

Noll worked in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., but IBM is a huge corporation for which internal communication were broadcast over a company-wide intranet. Noll asked for captioning of certain intranet videos or transcripts of audio files. Instead, as noted above, IBM gave him transcripts and access to ASL interpreters. Noll said these alternatives were not good enough it was “confusing and tiring” to look back and forth between the video and the ASL interpreter. Also, it sometimes took five days or longer for transcripts to be made available to Noll, and links to the transcripts were sometimes broken.

The IBM Media Library stores over 46,000 video files (!), only 100 of which were captioned.  As for live meetings, IBM provided him with ASL interpreters and Noll found those to be “effective.”  But he didn’t like the interpreters for the videos because he found it “confusing and tiring.”

The Second Circuit noted that determinations of the reasonableness of accommodations are typically fact-specific, but summary judgment can be granted to an employer if the accommodations are “plainly reasonable.”  (Pro tip: If the court is setting forth this standard, you can figure out where it is headed.)

This is an important point to emphasize and the court seems to be setting forth a standard that hasn’t been utilized much before in discussions. “In other words, the plain reasonableness of the existing accommodation ends the analysis. There is no need to engage in further burden‐shifting to consider whether the employee’s requested accommodation would have been reasonable.”

Reasonable accommodation can take many forms, but must be “effective”, the court said.  And, at the same time, employers are not required to provide the “perfect” accommodation or even the “very accommodation most strongly preferred” by the employee.  “All that is required is effectiveness.” 

Here, the court found that the accommodations from IBM were indeed “effective”.  While Noll said the interpreters were not as effective as captioning and that it was “tiring” to watch it, that objection is not enough to get him to a jury trial, let alone victory.

This disadvantage does not render interpretive services ineffective. A person who is deaf necessarily receives auditory information from other senses (principally sight); so it can be expected that many accommodations of deafness — ASL interpretive services as well as captioning — will tax visual attention to some degree. An accommodation for deafness therefore cannot be rendered ineffective by the need to divide visual attention, without more.

For employers, this is an important case to consider. IBM here had access to many more resources than most employers. And even with all the services it provided, it was sued for still not doing enough. The Second Circuit put an end to that — no doubt after IBM spent significant sums to defend itself.  Smaller employers may not be so fortunate.

Still, for employers, showing that you have entered into the interactive process with employees and provided what it believes to be an “effective” reasonable accommodation can still provide a path to success if sued.

Can You Still Have Dress Codes After Abercrombie Decision?

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Litigation
dress1

Probably not appropriate in workplace

I’m not a fan of click-bait, so if you clicked the headline just to know whether your company can still have a dress code policy after the Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the answer is “yes”.

But there’s an important caveat and for that, you’ll need to read on.

The Court’s decision has caused a bit of a ruckus with some commentators portending massive changes to discrimination law. As I said last week, I just don’t see that.

The evidence in the case, according to the lower court’s decision, was that the supervisor had believed that the job applicant was “Muslim” and “figured that was the religious reason why she wore her head scarf.”

Moreover, despite being scored highly in her job interview, the area manager said that the job applicant “should not be hired because she wore a headscarf—a clothing item that was inconsistent with the [company’s] Look Policy.”

In other words, there was more than ample evidence that the applicant’s religious practices played a factor in the Company’s decision not to hire her.

How could a company get tripped up by its own dress code or “look” policy? Well, for one, the policy did not explicitly state that its policy could be tweaked in some instances to accommodate religious practices.  Even the company has now dropped that policy.

All is not lost though for the rest of us. Dress codes are still acceptable.  But companies should not treat them as hardened laws, never to be broken.

One simple fix is to add a clause regarding reasonable accommodations such as this:

Employees who believe a reasonable accommodation to this policy should be granted based on religion, disability or other grounds protected by applicable law should feel free to discuss the matter with their supervisor. Reasonable accommodation will be granted unless it would cause an undue hardship on the employer or other business circumstances warrant.

Obviously, each policy should be tailored to your business and to your state, so — as with your employee handbook — you should have this language reviewed by your employment law counsel.

Now, whether dress codes are a good thing? That’s an entirely separate question for another day…..

 

MOVE Act Introduced; Non-Compete Agreements Would Be Limited, if Passed

Posted in Highlight, Legislative Developments

senate2003While I normally make my year-end reflections at, well, year end, I can’t help but take this moment to see the big picture: We’re hearing an awful lot about restrictive covenants.

These covenants — often in the shape of non-compete clauses or non-solicitation (of employees or customers) clauses — have become popular because companies are looking to protect their financial interests.

Connecticut — despite its reputation for being anti-business — still has relatively strong protections for employers who want to use these clauses for their employee.

But these clauses are coming under attack more and more as their use becomes more widespread.

Jay Wolman, on The Legal Satyricon, noted that non-disparagement clauses in separation agreements may be one area where courts are reluctant to enforce. As a result, employers may want to use severability clauses to have the agreements upheld even if one provision is overbroad:

These clauses are very common, but likely are not long for this world.  In the interim, employer counsel may want to rethink the standard severability clause.  Although employers are certainly keen on obtaining as much a release as possible, it may be time to reconsider whether the agreement should survive if the former employee can simply ignore these clauses.

The ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law also recently published an article on “Developing Trends in Non-Compete Agreements and Other Restrictive Covenants.” As the authors note, courts still tend to enforce the covenant “if it protects a legitimate business interest, the employee received consideration for the covenant, it is narrowly tailored, and the time and territorial limitations are no greater than necessary to protect the employer’s business interests.”

Despite this, the authors are quick to highlight the fact that each state interprets such things differently.

The New York Times even last year noted the trend of employers using these clauses more.  And not in a good way.

With this publicity in mind, Connecticut is again taking the lead — at least from a federal perspective.

Slate reported last week that Senator Chris Murphy introduced legislation that would ban non-compete agreements altogether for workers who make less than $15 per hour.

It would also require companies to let potential hires know ahead of time that they will be required to sign a non-compete agreement.

The bill, called the Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees Act (MOVE) is also co-sponsored by Connecticut’s other senator, Richard Blumenthal.

At a press conference, Senator Murphy said that the bill was necessary in a free labor market.  “If workers can’t go to a competitor for a promised higher wage, then the market fluidity — the labor fluidity that creates upward pressure on wages — disappears,” Murphy said. “If workers are locked into jobs because of non-compete clauses, then there is no reason for companies to raise their wages.”

Without bi-partisan support, the odds of this bill passing are somewhere between never and no.  But don’t be surprised if we see this pop up again at a state level in the next legislative session.

Back from the Dead: Procedural Changes Coming to CHRO and New Protections for Domestic Workers

Posted in CHRO & EEOC, Discrimination & Harassment, Featured, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Legislative Developments, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

maxSo in a post earlier on Friday, I recapped most of the employment law legislation that passed — except one. That bill, Senate Bill 446, was titled “AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM “DOMESTIC WORKER”.  

Innocuous enough, right?

But as it turns out, that bill was used as a cover to pass through significant changes to the CHRO process.

You will see that many of the changes are ones that I had tipped you all on earlier this year. Then back in April, we were told that the bill was “mostly dead”.

But like the Princess Bride, “Miracle Max” worked some magic and the bill came back from the dead during the session’s last week.

And there are so many changes that a separate blog post seemed like the best way to get through it all.

So let’s get to it, shall we?

Overall, the OLR summary of the bill recaps four main areas of change to the CHRO. It:

  1. shortens certain time frames for CHRO’s processing of complaints;
  2. allows the respondent (i.e., the alleged wrongdoer) to elect to participate in pre-answer conciliation;
  3. prohibits the same person from being assigned to conduct the mandatory mediation conference and investigate the complaint;
  4. transfers certain responsibilities from the CHRO executive director to the CHRO legal counsel.

But it also makes a significant change to the definition of who is an employee:

The bill also brings domestic workers who work for employers with at least three employees under the employment-related anti-discrimination laws administered by CHRO. Among other things, this provides them with (1) protections against employment-related discrimination based on their race, color, religion, age, sex, gender identity, marital status, national origin, ancestry, and mental or physical disability; (2) a right to a reasonable leave of absence for a disability resulting from a pregnancy and other pregnancy-related protections; and (3) protections against sexual harassment. By law, employees covered under the CHRO statutes can enforce their rights by filing a complaint with the commission.

If signed by the governor, the CHRO provisions will go into effect October 1, 2015, while the provisions on domestic workers will become effective January 1, 2016.

In more detail, the bill makes several changes to the CHRO process.

Responding to the Complaint Continue Reading

Legislative Recap: Bills Relating to Pay Secrecy and Unemployment Pass in Final Days

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

generalassemblyThe dust has finally settled from the close of the Connecticut General Assembly on Wednesday.  And it’s time to take a look at the last few days to see what employment law bills passed.

(I’ll tackle the changes that have been made to the CHRO in a post later today.)

As I’ve noted in prior posts (here, here and here), several employment law-related bills had already passed including: a bill regarding online privacy rights of employees (signed by Governor); a bill allowing double damages in wage/hour cases awaiting Governor’s signature); a bill protecting interns from discrimination and harassment (same); and a bill introducing labor history into school curriculum (same).

In the last days, however, a closely-watched bill that prohibits employers from enacting rules that prevent employees from sharing information about their wages, passed. It also awaits the Governor’s signature.

The bill has been amended since it was first introduced but still places additional restrictions on employers. As a result, employers should consider updating their policies and revisiting their approach to salary discussions.

As recapped by the General Assembly, the bill accomplishes the following:

This bill prohibits employers, including the state and municipalities, from taking certain steps to limit their employees’ ability to share information about their wages. Under the bill, such sharing consists of employees under the same employer (1) disclosing or discussing the amount of their own wages or other employees’ voluntarily disclosed wages or (2) asking about other employees’ wages. Specifically, the bill bans employers from (1) prohibiting their employees from such sharing; (2) requiring employees to sign a waiver or document that denies their right to such sharing; and (3) discharging, disciplining, discriminating or retaliating against, or otherwise penalizing employees for such sharing.

The bill allows employees to bring a lawsuit to redress a violation of its provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction. The suit must be brought within two years after an alleged violation. Employers can be found liable for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, punitive damages, and any legal and equitable relief the court deems just and proper.

The amendment to the bill that was passed limits an employee’s sharing of another employee’s wage information to information that (1) is about another of the employer’s employees and (2) was voluntarily disclosed by the other employee.

I’ve noted before that I think many of the provisions are duplicative of federal law and a concern that there isn’t a big public policy need to create a new cause of action here.

But it’s a bit too late for that. The Governor proposed this bill so he is very likely to sign it.  The provisions go into effect on July 1, 2015.  (Contrast that with other bills that go into effect on October 1, 2015.)

Another bill that passed in the closing days was House Bill 6707 which allows employers to fire employees for failing some off-duty drug tests without impacting their unemployment rating.  It awaits the Governor’s signature.  As recapped by the General Assembly:

This bill expands the circumstances under which a private-sector employer can discharge or suspend an employee without affecting the employer’s unemployment taxes. It creates a “non-charge” against an employer’s experience rate for employees discharged or suspended because they failed a drug or alcohol test while off duty and subsequently lost a driver’s license needed to perform the work for which they had been hired. (The law disqualifies a person from operating a commercial motor vehicle for one year if he or she is convicted of driving under the influence (DUI.)) In effect, this allows the discharged or suspended employee to collect unemployment benefits without increasing the employer’s unemployment taxes.

Several other bills failed in the final days including a low wage penalty, paid family & medical leave, a minimum work week for janitors, limits on criminal background checks and on credit reports,

Overall, it was a busy year for the legislature. For employers, the next few months should keep you busy with a review of your existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with these new laws.