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

I realize this blog has been a little top heavy of late with legislative developments, but it always seems that a whole year's worth of developments occur within a 2-3 week period at the end of the short General Assembly session. With this year's session scheduled to close at the end of the day on Wednesday, the developments are fast and furious. The court updates will return in force soon.

In the meantime, here's the brief recap of some of the developments from the last day or two (more to follow if and when necessary):

15-Year-Old Workers

The House late today passed a bill today that reinstates the labor law permitting 15-year-olds to work in grocery stores and similar positions. I expect the Governor to sign it shortly.  I've covered the bill in detail, most recently yesterday.  The bill, S.B. 216, can be downloaded here.  It will become effective immediately upon signature by Gov. Rell.  It amends Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-23. 

Jury Duty

The provision on jury duty were amended in a few subtle ways through a bill passed by the House on Monday and expected to be signed by the Governor.

First, House Bill 5918 (download text here) allows persons who have served on jury duty in the last three years to request the opportunity to serve again even though they would otherwise be excused.  (It amends Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-217a(a) in doing so.) 

Second, the bill also provides additional protection to workers on jury duty.  Specifically, it makes it clear that "any juror-employee who has served eight hours of jury duty in any one day shall be deemed to have worked a legal day's work as that term is used in section 31-21...and an employer shall not require the juror employee to work in excess of eight hours." 

What does this mean? In practical terms, it means that jurors cannot be required to work while they are also serving full days on jury duty.  Employees can, it appears, voluntarily work -- after hours, for example -- since the language prohibits requiring the employee to do so.  Because Connecticut does not have a daily overtime rule, the employee may not even be entitled to overtime for simply working in addition to jury duty.

This jury duty law will go into effect on October 1, 2008, assuming Gov. Rell signs the bill.

Child Performer Protection

The House has yet to address House Bill 5677, which would institute a whole new range of protections for children who act (or "perform").  You can download the bill here, but the lack of action on the bill so far indicates that time may run out on this provision. 

Whistleblower Protection

S.B. 335, which expands the protection of state whistleblowers has yet to be considered by the House. I looked at Senate Bill 335 in an earlier post. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With just a few days to go, the list of pending bills in both the state Senate and House continues to grow. 

But it is worth updating readers on one uncontroversial employment law bill that passed the Senate over a month ago that remains pending. 

Specifically, Senate Bill 216 would renew a labor law that permitted 15-year-olds to work in grocery stores as baggers, shelf stockers and cashiers.  As readers will recall, this law expired last fall "apparently because lawmakers forgot to renew it."

The law has been on the books for 20 years, but had an automatic sunset provision in it that lawmakers overlooked when the session ended last year.

The new bill, which would also grant amnesty to those employers who have continued to employ 15-year-olds during the last six months or so, passed the Senate last month on the consent calendar and looked to have swift passage in the House. 

And perhaps it will pass in the closing days. But given the full agenda of the House, it would be a shame if the General Assembly overlooked this important law again.  House members would be wise to make sure this bill is put on the consent calendar again in the closing days.  It's passage will ensure valuable jobs for teenagers are open for years to come.

UPDATE 12 p.m.: The bill appears on the "Go List" for today, which is available here.  There are two amendments that may potentially be raised today regarding home-schooled teens and apprenticeships. While both topics are interesting, the bill ought to be passed in its original form; otherwise, it will need to be returned to the Senate for further consideration.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When a worker is injured on the job, it's tragic.  It's even more tragic when that employee is left a paraplegic.

When that same worker and his wife are awarded $41 million by a jury against a general contractor, it's noteworthy.  It's particularly noteworthy in Connecticut, which is not known historically for its high jury awards.

When the Connecticut Supreme Court throws out the entire jury award and directs a verdict for the defendant -- a contractor -- it's remarkable.

Yet, that's exactly what happened on Monday in Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co. (download here).  The Connecticut Law Tribune has the details here (available free):

A defense judgment directed by the Connecticut Supreme Court has saved a New Jersey contractor more than $41 million in legal liability to a paraplegic who was injured when a defectively-welded girder fell on his head.

In addition to the setback the high court dealt Norman Pelletier and his wife Reine, the unanimous verdict also found contractor Sordoni Skanska wasn’t liable because the accident was not foreseeable.

Peter T. Zarella, writing for the court, found that Waterbury Superior Court Judge Jon Alander improperly found that Connecticut’s construction code created a non-delegable duty for the contractor to make sure the welds were inspected for the benefit of welder Pelletier, among others.

The decision will have more impact for those in the construction industry, than employment, because it allows some contractors to delegate duties without risk of liability.  But one obvious reason why workers sometimes try to sue parties other than their employer is the fact that workers compensation acts as a bar to such claims.

Kudos to Dan Krisch, the current chair of the Connecticut Bar Association's Young Lawyers Section for his representation of the defendant in this case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning asked the government for its views on whether workers may settle Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims with their employers.  The SCOTUS Blog has the details:

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the U.S. Solicitor General for the government’s view on whether workers may settle with their employers their claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The issue arises in Progress Energy v. Taylor (07-539). The Fourth Circuit Court (download decision here), ruling in conflict with the Fifth Circuit Court, decided that a Labor Department regulation barred both past and future waiver of all FMLA rights. The Labor Department has taken the position that its regulation permits backward-looking release of claims under that law.

The Fourth Circuit's decision arises mainly from a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor.  Specifically, 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) states that "[e]mployees cannot waive, nor may employers induce employees to waive, their rights under [the] FMLA."  That decision created a split in the circuits that have decided the issue. 

Lots of outside parties have already submitted papers at the U.S. Supreme Court asking for consideration of this issue including the Association of Corporate Counsel, Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

For those in Connecticut, remember that the state regulations mirror the federal regulations on this particular subject. So it is likely that a U.S. Supreme Court decision may also have an impact on how this issue is ultimately decided in Connecticut.  Conn. Regs. 31-51qq-25(d) states:

Employees cannot waive, nor may employers induce employees to waive, their rights under FMLA. For example, employees (or their collective bargaining representatives) cannot “trade off” the right to take FMLA leave against some other  benefit offered by the employer.

 It remains to be seen if the U.S. Supreme Court will take up this issue or wait for the split in circuits to become clearer. But given that the Roberts court has taken up several employment law claims for consideration, don't be surprised if this issue gets put on the docket later this winter.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks