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

Busy end to the week so here's a quick recap of some of the stories I've been hoping to write further about but have run out of time.  There's also a link or two to other stories of interest in Connecticut.

• For those dealing with labor unions, the DC Employment Law Update notes that a new final rule from the government released yesterday revokes "the requirement that federal contractors inform employees of their rights regarding the payment of union dues or fees."

The blog also notes that it revokes another prior executive order from the Bush Administration that "had required that federal contractors post a notice to its employees informing them that: (1) they are not required to join or maintain membership in a labor union; and (2) that those who are not union members – but are nonetheless required to pay dues or fees pursuant to a union security agreement – can object to paying a portion of those dues or fees to support activities that are not related to collective bargaining, contract administration or grievance adjustment."

• The EEOC has outlined its regulatory agenda for early 2010. Workplace Prof has the details.
   
• The DOL has posted a few more nuggets of guidance about the COBRA subsidy now that it is starting to expire for some.  
   
• Intermittent leave is among the toughest parts of FMLA to oversee. HR Daily Advisor has some very helpful nuggets to try to make it a little easier.
   
• The Wait a Second blog (really one of the underrated blogs out there) provides a recap of a recent Second Circuit decision of Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., in which the court ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not exempt workers whose job skills are not customarily the product of advanced educational training.
   
• In case you missed it, there was a fun article in the Connecticut Law Tribune a few weeks back about two employment lawyers in the state who have found something in common besides the law. I know both David Rintoul and Mickey Busca and their new venture certainly allows them to "toot their own horn."  Kudos to the both of them.
   
• And finally, in light of the first night of Hanukkah tonight, let me extend warm holiday greetings and pass along two links to recipes for holiday treats that I've seen over the last week -- donuts and latkes.  The latke recipe is pretty close to my family's secret recipe so it's definitely worth a try.

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

It was never really a question of if, but when.

And yesterday, the United States District Court in Connecticut made final what had long been anticipated in the Ricci v. DeStefano case -- the promotions of various firefighters to the positions of Lieutenant and Captain.  You can download the order here.

In doing so, the Court also ordered the City to certify the results of the promotional exam. Specifically:

The New Haven Civil Service Board shall certify the results of the 2003 promotional examinations for the positions of Lieutenant and Captain in the New Haven Fire Department, and shall certify the promotional lists for each position derived from these examination results.

The New Haven Independent has a full report on the order as well as feedback from each of the parties to the lawsuit.  The New Haven Register's report is here. 

Earlier this month, a group of black firefighters moved to intervene in the lawsuit. The court has yet to rule on that motion, but the court's entry of judgment certainly indicates that the judge did not view that motion as warranting any delay in the proceedings.

As noted before, the parties will still brief two additional issues for the court's review: (a) the scope and nature of damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled under Title VII, and (b) whether any counts remain for liability adjudication.  The briefing of these issues will be completed in early January 2010. 

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

Yesterday, a group of black firefighters filed a motion to intervene in the Ricci v. DeStefano case claiming their rights will be "irrevocably impaired " if they aren't allowed to join in the case.  You can download the motion and the accompanying memorandum of law here. 

The motion was not unexpected though I'm not sure anyone expected it so soon.

Last Friday, for example, The New Haven Register reported on a new batch of discrimination claims filed at the EEOC on behalf of seven black firefighters who claimed that if the Ricci v. DeStefano lawsuit were to proceed with a trial and the test results certified, it would harm minorities in the job ranks. These firefighters are the ones that have now sought intervention. The black firefighters' claims are separate and apart from another claim brought by firefighter Michael Briscoe, who is also challenging the decision. 

As I pointed out in my earlier post and in the article, these claims face a big hurdle to overcome in light of the Supreme Court's language about how courts should dispose of such claims against New Haven if they were to be brought.  You can download one of the claims directly here.

To overcome the Supreme Court's language, they claim that they are primarily claiming that they have been treated in a discriminatory fashion, and not merely impacted in a discriminatory way. They also claim that the Supreme Court's language was merely dictum and not binding on future courts.

How the District Court treats this new filing will no doubt be the subject of lots of speculation in the upcoming days but it is clear that despite efforts by the Ricci parties to work towards a resolution, the case is far from being concluded in one form or another. 

In the meantime, the actual parties in the Ricci v. DeStefano case prepared proposed orders for the District Court to use to implement the decision of the Supreme Court.  You can download them here and here. 

The parties will now brief two additional issues for the court's review: (a) the scope and nature of damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled under Title VII, and (b) whether any counts remain for liability adjudication.  The briefing of these issues will be completed in early January 2010.  

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