New Connecticut Laws effective October 1, 2007

Posted on October 1, 2007 by Daniel Schwartz

Pumpkin - Morgue FileOctober.  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.)   

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Non-Compete Agreements for Security Guards

Posted on September 14, 2007 by Daniel Schwartz

With apologies to Alex Trebek, it's time for a game of legal Jeopardy. 


First, the answer: "As a result of a new Connecticut law (effective October 1, 2007), employees in this arcane type of job classification can now bring suit if their employer requires them to sign a certain type of non-compete agreement."

The question: What is "classification 339032 of the standard occupational classification system of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor"?

Are you confused yet? If so, let's back up.  

About a year ago, Guardsmark, a security company, lost its contract to provide services to ESPN. When employees from the old security company tried to work for the new company, Guardsmark invoked the non-compete agreements that these employees signed.  As Connecticut readers know, there are not many state laws that restrict the use of non-compete agreements, compared with other states.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal picked up the cause and testified in support a new bill that would prohibit employers from using non-compete agreements on security personnel in limited circumstances. 

The bill, which was subsequently modified then passed by the general assembly, 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.)

The general assembly, however, did not use the term "security officer" or define it, which, I would argue would have been the more logical approach to take. Rather, it relied on standard occupational classifications that have been created by the U.S. Department of Labor "for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data."

A look at the online SOC codes, however, are far from enlightening: Under 33-9062 (which is how the DOL actually lists its classification), it has the following description:

33-9032 Security Guards -- Guard, patrol, or monitor premises to prevent theft, violence, or infractions of
Far from an eloquent description, since many employers are not even aware that the DOL uses these types of classification.

So, how will this be interpreted? We're unlikely to find out given the narrow nature of the law. For employers of security guards, however, one answer is simple: Do not use broad non-compete agreements to prevent employees from working for new employers at the same location. 

And stay tuned for a sequel; the DOL website posts this informational note: "The 2000 SOC Manual is currently under revision.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,