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

With the legislative session coming to a close next week, developments are heating up at a fast and furious pace.  I'll do some quick updating and then provide a more through review when time permits.

First, the State Senate debated the Paid Sick Leave bill (S.B. 217) yesterday for about an hour, when the debate apparently raised questions on its impact on collective bargaining agreements.  The Senate has been working off of some amendments as well, which can be located here.

The Hartford Courant has coverage here.   The CT News Junkie blog has a report earlier this week about it as well.

Second, the State Senate also passed amendments to the state's whistleblower law.  You can find my previous coverage here and you can view the Courant's coverage today of it here.

The bill, which is now listed at S.B. 335, is similar to a prior version proposed back in February and allows the Attorney General to intervene in some whistleblower cases.  The bill now moves on to the House for a vote. 

As I noted before, while the goals of the bill are laudable, the path that it takes to get there is troubling.  The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that an change in employment status (a transfer, for example) within three years of a person's complaint, is retaliatory. That creates a huge shield for employees and encourages them to file complaints -- even those that may not be warranted.

This proposal ignores what courts have been concluding over the years: that it is highly unlikely that an employer would wait a year -- much less three years -- to "retaliate" against such a complaint.  As the U.S. Supreme Court said a few years ago in Clark County Schools v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) in a unanimous, unsigned opinion:

The cases that accept mere temporal proximity between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima facie case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be "very close."... Action taken (as here) 20 months later suggests, by itself, no causality at all.

Given the highest court's reasoned conclusion that a transfer or firing taken 20 months after a person's complaint does not suggest a connection between the two, what is the rationale behind the proposed legislation that assumes such a connection up to 36 months later?

Unfortunately, the rationale is not likely to be explained or even debated as the bill moves forward.  Legislators will try to show that they are "protecting" whistleblowers, but in doing so, they are likely to create a mess that the courts will be left to clean up.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Senate Bill 217, the Paid Sick Leave bill, which I have reported on here and here, passed the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly late last week, setting the stage for a possible Senate vote in the next few weeks.  Various blogs and website have set the stage for a possible showdown at the legislature.

The My Left Nutmeg blog shares its views on the bill and suggests that people can send an Apple Gram to their legislators to tell them to pass it. 

Four out of ten working people in Connecticut don't have a single paid sick day available to them all year. Workers who feel compelled to show up work slower and get others sick, increasing costs for employers. Those who can't make it to work lose income. About one in four parents with a child under one does not have any paid sick time. All of the top twenty most competitive economies in the world - except the U.S. - guarantee paid sick days for workers.

In Connecticut, a network of organizations coordinated by Working Families has launched the Everybody Benefits campaign, which backs Senate Bill 217, designed to guarantee that workers in medium to large companies can earn a few days of sick time each year. Last year, the bill passed the Senate, but never got a vote in the House. This week it passed the Judiciary Committee and moves to the Senate.

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) released a press release of their own saying that many businesses oppose the bill:

Connecticut businesses are urging state legislators to oppose SB-217 which mandates paid sick leave, because it would significantly increase business costs, make Connecticut companies less competitive, cause workplace disruptions and hurt our employees, not help them. The bill would hit small businesses and those that rely on part-time and seasonal help the hardest. ....

"This bill would require employers to provide paid sick leave to all hourly employees with indefinite carryover to future years, further increasing costs and seriously harming businesses in Connecticut as well as the state's economy,” said Bonnie Stewart, CBIA vice president of government affairs. “The bill targets smaller, service industry employers and seasonal companies — the ones that can least afford it.”

According to a recent Connecticut Business & Industry Association survey, the majority of employers (69 percent) offer paid sick leave to their employees. Stewart added that this bill is a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't allow businesses the flexibility to deal with the needs of their employees.

Both sides in this debate appear to be loading up for a battle.  Just a few weeks left to see who prevails in this legislative tussle.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

With one month to go in the shortened legislative session, there hasn't been a lot of action on various labor & employment bills.  Many of the bills I highlighted in the last two months haven't seen a lot of action or are still awaiting further votes.  This post will briefly summarize where some of the bills are based on the Bill Record Book. 

• The Workplace Bullying bill, Senate Bill 60, which I addressed here, appears to be going nowhere. There has been no committee action on it, unlike several others.  In my opinion, there are just too many issues that would need to be resolved and addressed to make the proposed bill a workable law. 
  
• Similarly, Senate Bill 61, which provides additional protections to whistleblowers hasn't gone anywhere yet either.  There has yet to be a hearing on it and no action appears to have been taken on it.  Some of my prior coverage is available here.
  
• On a different note, the bill to allow 15 year olds back into grocery stores, Senate Bill 216, passed the Senate last week.  This one seems like a sure thing to get House approval. For more background on this bill, click here for my prior coverage. 
  
• The Paid Sick Leave Bill, Senate Bill 217, is far from sick. I covered the bill's origins here.  Indeed, the Labor & Public Employee Committee has favorably voted the bill out to the Judiciary Committee on April 3, 2008.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks