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

Time for a few multiple-choice questions:

1. In the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, the number of cases filed in federal court in Connecticut was: a) up significantly over 2007; b) about the same as 2007; c) markedly down from 2007.

2. Since 2003, the number of cases filed and pending in the federal court in Connecticut is: a) trending noticeably upwards; b) remaining fairly constant; c) trending noticeably downwards.

3. In 2008, the median time it took a civil case to get to trial in federal court in Connecticut was: a) 18 months; b) 25 months; c) 32 months; d) 40 months 

If you answered c) to each of the questions, you are well on your way to becoming an expert on court statistics.

But for those needing a little extra study, you can find the new statistics for Connecticut (and every other federal court) available on the U.S. Courts website here. The statistics were just released and reveal overall trends in the federal court system.

Why is this important for employers? Employers should be aware of the federal court statistics because many claims of discrimination are brought under federal law (and therefore, in federal court).  If there are big increases in the numbers of discrimination cases, you would expect to see a noticeable uptick in the court caseload.  

The fact that the caseload has decreased in 2008 and has continued to decrease for multiple years reveals that whatever trends may be happening at an administrative level or national level, they haven't translated in Connecticut to significantly more cases as of yet..  Compare this with the New York City area which shows the caseload trending higher over the last several years. 

In fact, Connecticut seems be running counter to the national numbers, which showed the number of cases filed in district courts nationwide was up 4.3% over 2007.)  Employers should also be cognizant that they were not likely to get a quick outcome of the case. Waiting 32 months for a trial is, as the statistics reveal, quite common in Connecticut.

Employers should not draw too many conclusions from the statistics.  After all, the most recent statistics of charges pending at the EEOC shows quite a number of claims in the pipeline. While 2008 may not have been the most litigious one for employers in Connecticut, where 2009 ends up remains a big question.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The McCain campaign last night was trying to make much of a comment that Sen. Obama made on the campaign trail on Tuesday about the concept of Sen. McCain bringing about change.  "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."  In fact, Sen. McCain made similar comments last year referring to Sen. Clinton's health care plan. 

But in employment law arenas, we're often confronted with "stray remarks" used to prove discrimination.  I was fascinated to know if this phrase had come up in the legal context before (particularly employment law), since I'm sure we'll hear something more about it during the next media cycle.

My quick search found just a few notable finds, mainly by courts or legislative branches that used the phrase to discuss a topic, but not as a stray remark:

• In 2005, various Democrats issued a minority report on the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, the full version of which can be found here.  But at the end, of the report, several representative add their views on employment discrimination (which can be found here).  They state:
  
  Employment discrimination is ugly. You can put lipstick on a pig, but you can't pass it off as a beauty queen. And you cannot dress up `We don't hire Catholics, Jews, and Hindus' with poll-tested semantics and euphemisms and pass it off as anything other than ugly discrimination.
   
• Of federal court decisions, a First Circuit case in 2005 addressing civil rights had this to say on an issue of using a person's prior bad acts to show that they had a propensity to commit current acts:
  
  Using the plaintiff's prior bad act to show that the defendant did not mistakenly or accidentally identify the plaintiff as one of his attackers is nothing more than a ham-fisted attempt to put lipstick on the propensity pig.
  
  
• And then there was a judge who was cited for "poor taste" earlier this year by using a dressed up pig picture in a written ruling "commenting on an attorney for a school district that was being sued for allegedly discriminating in employment."  According to a report from June 2008 from Rocky Mountain News, the Colorado district court judge "in a written ruling, included a picture of a pig wearing pearls, lipstick and sunglasses, saying the attorney's argument was 'no more availing than' the pig."

If you know of any other good "lipstick on a pig" references in court decisions, particularly related to employment law, feel free to submit comments about it.

And for employers, I would avoid using the phrase for the foreseeable future. Given the connotations this phrase is likely to have for a little while, no good can come of it -- even if it is fairly harmless in nature.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link