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

October.  Here in New England, it brings to mind pumpkins.  Besides being carved up (made into pumpkin pie), pumpkins also hold a place in story lore -- you'll recall from Cinderella that a pumpkin could be magically transformed into a beautiful carriage (which of course, you can buy on Amazon.) 

In Connecticut, October also brings about new laws, which go into effect on this date.  Which laws will blossom into beautiful carriages, with meaning and true purpose, and which ones will remain pumpkins?  It remains to be seen.  But here are some of my early contenders on the employment side of things:

Carriages (Laws that should run smoothly -- relatively easy to interpret, apply and understand):

• The laws regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and civil union status have been evolving this year.  Before this year, Connecticut just prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  In July 2007, Connecticut prohibited employment discrimination based on a person's civil union status.  Now, effective today, however, the laws are broadened even further on sexual orientation grounds. 

It will now be "discriminatory practice for any person to subject any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this state on account of sexual orientation."  This is clear and gives some greater consistency to the application of sexual orientation discrimination laws in the state.  A full background on these new laws is discussed during an earlier post. 

Pumpkins (Laws with limited application or may lead to unintended consequences):

• A new law prohibiting the use of non-compete agreements, in some circumstances, for security guards.  I've discussed this new law's background at length previously, but suffice to say that its an inartfully drafted statute.  At its core, the new law prohibits employers from requiring security officers to "enter into an agreement prohibiting such person from engaging in the same or a similar job, at the same location at which the employer employs such person, for another employer or as a self-employed person". (If the employer can "prove" that the employee received trade secrets, then a non-compete can be used.)
  
• Incidentally, this same new law also prohibits the use of non-compete agreements for broadcast employees (also known as television anchors).  Jonathan O'Connell, of the Hartford Business Journal, had this to say about the case over the summer and recalled the influence that WFSB Channel 3 anchor Al Terzi had on its passage. 

One can argue about whether non-compete agreements are a useful tool for business or harm an employee's right to work; when the legislature carves out exceptions for certain industries however, it passes up on the opportunity to set real boundaries for restrictive covenants. Instead, this statute would appear to affect just a handful of employees every year, if even that.

(Speaking of deadlines and new laws, yesterday was the deadline for filing new updated EEO-1 forms to comply with federal laws. The guidance from the DOL is publicly available.  Employers that haven't yet submitted the information should do so ASAP.)   

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Two years ago, when Connecticut passed a civil union law, there was ample amount of press on the changes to the various laws. But on July 10, a change to Connecticut's employment laws took place with virtually no coverage.

Specifically, Public Act 07-245 amended the state's employment laws to preclude discrimination in the workplace based on a person's civil union status. These sections went into effect upon passage. Governor Jodi Rell signed the act on July 10, 2007, making these changes effective immediately.

The change itself should be relatively easy to incorporate. Employers in Connecticut might consider updating their EEO policies to include this new protected class.

What is odd about the new law is not the result, but the legislature's method for doing so. Connecticut has long-separated out prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination with its own statutory scheme in C.G.S. 46a-81c, separate and apart from its normal laundry list of protected categories present in C.G.S. 46a-60. Thus, "Marital Status" has always been listed in the laundry list but sexual orientation has not. The legislature added "civil union status" as a category under 46a-81c, not 46a-60, thus making it comparable to sexual orientation. 

The legislature also explicitly wrote that marital status is to be defined the same as civil union status for all other Connecticut laws, except when used in the laws regarding employment and housing discrimination.

Is this a distinction without a difference? Perhaps. But it is a convoluted way to write statutes and gives voice to the argument that the government is not treating civil unions the same as marriage. 

And if that were the end of the legislature's maneuvers, that would be enough.

But effective October 1, 2007, a different public act will also impact discrimination claims. In Public Act 07-62, the legislature amended Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-58 to make it a discriminatory practice for any person to subject any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this state on account of sexual orientation.

The bill's analysis suggests that this statute:

gives the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) jurisdiction to investigate complaints of deprivations of rights, privileges, and immunities secured or protected by any state or federal law or constitution on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, for example, it gives CHRO jurisdiction to investigate complaints of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against students by public schools.

That may be true, but given that sexual orientation (and now civil unions) are decided under a different statutory scheme that other types of discrimination, the legislature has only made the hodgepodge of laws in the area more confusing by amending the statutes in different ways and inconsistently.

It's time to revise Connecticut's discriminatory practice laws to make them easy to understand and in one place. Otherwise, the legislature it just making more work for employment lawyers like myself.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)