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

A bill to provide mandatory paid sick leave to employees and a bill to provide greater protection to state whistleblowers were among the employment law-related bills that were not voted upon in the final day of the legislative session -- effectively killing them. 

The Paid Sick Leave bill, S.B. 217, had passed the Senate last week, but the House did not bring the measure up for a vote. As I indicated yesterday, nearly 25 amendments had been proposed on it -- a sign that the bill was going to be in for a long fight.  My earlier coverage of the bill is available here. CT News Junkie has a report on it as well.

The Whistleblower bill, S.B. 335, had also passed the Senate, but again, the House did not act on that provision either. My earlier coverage of the bill is available here.

Other bills that were not acted upon by the legislature include: a Workplace Bullying bill; a bill protecting child in the entertainment industry from child labor abuses; and a bill to allow workers to be paid by a pay or debit card.

One bill that did pass this week allows for the regulation of various professional service organizations and about employee misclassification (H.B. 5113).  I'll cover that in further detail in an upcoming post.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today is the final day of the General Assembly and the Paid Sick Leave proposal (S.B. 217) is expected to come before the House before the close of business.  But, perhaps in a sign that it is doomed to die a procedural death, it has drawn nearly 25 proposed amendments.  

One of the listed amendments is just a head scratcher.  Specifically, House Amendment 6092 (proposed by House Republican Leader Lawrence Cafero and Rep. Aman) would, in essence, allow employees to use paid sick leave for the first day of summer, the first day of fishing or hunting season, or, and I kid you not, the opening day of baseball season. 

Don't believe me? Here's the actual language:  

(e) No employer shall require documentation of an illness, injury or health condition, as described in subsection (b) of this section, if the employee uses a paid sick day on the twenty-first day of the month of June, the first day of a sport-fishing or hunting season authorized pursuant to chapter 26 of the general statutes, or the opening day of the official Major League Baseball season. " 

Thus, under this amendment, an employee could take the day off to attend the Opening Day of baseball season, and the employer would just have to "take the employee's word" that the day was a paid sick leave day.  The Office of Fiscal Analysis even issued a one sentence report indicating that it would have no "fiscal impact" in the state.

Because the proposal comes from two Republican lawmakers (who, as a group, have expressed skepticism about the bill), I think it's fair to say that this proposal will go nowhere. Maybe it is just being used to make a point that the paid sick leave bill will be difficult to enforce. But, given the ramifications of the Paid Sick Leave act bill, as I've covered before, one has to wonder what they were thinking in taking the time to draft an actual amendment on this topic.

The General Assembly starts again this morning. Grab your popcorn. Should be a fun last day.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We've had an illness in the family recently and it reminded me of a topic that most employers (and I would dare say attorneys) are probably unfamiliar with in Connecticut.  Specifically, Connecticut's FMLA laws allow an employee to use sick days not simply for themselves, but to care for a family member in certain circumstances.  The law also allows for the use of sick days for the birth or adoption of a child.

This is unique to Connecticut -- no comparable federal law exists -- but this law is so underpublicized or misunderstood that I would guess that many employers simply don't follow it.  After all, sick days are normally viewed as days to take when the employee is sick, not for someone else.  This provision is also fairly recent (having passed just a few years ago) so that may add to the misunderstanding.

So where is this provision found (or buried, depending on your perspective)?  Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51pp(c)(1). That section reads as follows:

(c) (1) It shall be a violation of sections 31-51kk to 31-51qq, inclusive, for any employer to deny an employee the right to use up to two weeks of accumulated sick leave ... to attend to a serious health condition of a son or daughter, spouse or parent of the employee, or for the birth or adoption of a son or daughter of the employee. For purposes of this subsection, "sick leave" means an absence from work for which compensation is provided through an employer's bona fide written policy providing compensation for loss of wages occasioned by illness, but does not include absences from work for which compensation is provided through an employer's plan, including, but not limited to, a short or long-term disability plan, whether or not such plan is self-insured.

So, a few key points arise from this section:

• The employee may take up to two weeks paid sick leave -- if they have accumulated it.  If the employees don't have the time to begin with, the employer is under no obligation to give the paid sick leave.
• The sick leave is not applicable to take care of family members with ordinary illnesses such as colds, etc. Rather, it is only for a "serious health condition" as defined by the FMLA. 
  
• The employees still need to abide by the other requirements of FMLA for such leave, including providing documentation that the family member does indeed have a serious health condition.
• If the employer does not have a written policy of sick days but only, for example, gives employees vacation days, then this provision would appear not to apply.  However, if the policy states that vacation days can be used for an employee's illness, then the employer is open to an argument that this provision may apply.
• The sick leave can also be taken for the birth or adoption of a child.
• Although Sec. 31-51pp(c)(2) doesn't implicitly state this, this provision is related to the Connecticut FMLA. Thus, if the employee does not qualify for FMLA in the first place, this provision would not appear to apply.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)