Ten years ago today, I wrote about the then-Tenth Anniversary of one of the horrible events that made a lasting impact on Connecticut employers.

I recounted the Connecticut Lottery shootings that happened a decade earlier.

Today, marks 20 years. (The CT Mirror has another perspective here.)

The New York Times report of that event is still chilling in its matter of factness:

Angered about a salary dispute and his failure to win a promotion, a Connecticut Lottery accountant reported promptly to his job this morning, hung up his coat and then methodically stabbed and gunned down four of his bosses, one of whom he chased through a parking lot, before turning the gun on himself.

Since that time, we’ve had other workplace shootings in Connecticut including one even deadlier (Hartford Distributors) and, of course, the massacre in Sandy Hook.

I’m reminded of a post I did early on that was titled: Are there really any lessons to be learned from evil? In it, I suggested the answer was “perhaps” — if only because employers need to keep reviewing their workplace violence policies and keep figuring out ways to spot trouble before it arises.

Just in 2014 alone, there were over 400 workplace homicides nationwide reported to OSHA.

Indeed, it seems the rare case where workplace violence just pops up out of nowhere.

OSHA does have some resources on the subject — but many of them are starting to be dated. 

One of the more useful items was a set of guidelines issued in 2015 targeting healthcare and social service workers.

It calls on employers to develop workplace violence prevention programs from five building blocks:

  1. Management commitment and employee participation;
  2. Worksite analysis;
  3. Hazard prevention and control;
  4. Safety and health training, and
  5. Recordkeeping and program evaluation.

There are far more details in the report than a blog post could recap but for employers looking to reduce the risk of a workplace shooting at their facility, getting started on your own program is as good a place to start as any.

As we remember the victims of the Connecticut Lottery shooting, may we honor their memories to keep bringing change and safety to our workplaces.

Earlier this week, as I peeked up from my bed covers, I heard the lovely, comforting sound I heard when I was a kid.

“Come on Down!”

“The Price is Right” was starting.

Sure, Bob Barker is no longer the host, but I didn’t care.

At that moment, when my stomach was churning and the room was moving a bit, all I was hoping for was a round of Plinko. (I did, however, miss the ultimate Plinko win a few weeks back.)

Well that, and maybe a spin of the wheel where someone wins a $1000.  (And I missed this record-setting set of spins too.)

Netflix? My head hurts.

Bingeing on a show? Too much thinking.

But at 11 a.m. — like chicken soup — The Price is Right was there for me.

Is it the classic show for working folk to watch when they’re sick? Who knows.

With an iPhone by your side and the e-mails piling up, it’s hard to just rest and let your body recover.

In fact, I would argue that it’s harder in this 24/7 work environment to just tune out. But one of the myriad of bugs going around this winter laid me up for a few days.

Sure, I could’ve read up about paid time off, or debate whether flu shots should be required.

But where’s the fun in that?

Employment laws are great — except when you’re the person you is the subject of them. Thankfully, my firm (and our clients) are understanding. Better to stay home and not get others sick, than to come in.

We know not all employers are like that. However, this winter, it seems to have shifted a bit — at least informally.  The messages have been getting out — don’t come into work sick.

Spring is coming. And work resumes.

But The Price is Right is, at least for me, a reminder that taking care of yourself is eternal.


By now, you may have read about yesterday’s decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Connecticut is in that federal circuit (along with New York and Vermont).  You can download the decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., here. (You’ve been warned though — there are 163 pages to the various opinions!)

The decision talks a lot of “associational discrimination” and other academic theories of proving a case under Title VII; that’s beyond the practical aspects of this blog for employers but practitioners in the area should review the decision as a whole.

So what IS the practical impact on Connecticut employers? 

Not as much as you might first think.

Connecticut state law already bars employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Indeed, last year, I wrote that the debate over whether federal law includes a bar against discrimination on sexual orientation was largely moot because of state law.

Yes, there are some slight differences; for example, Connecticut has an exception for “religious corporations” that I talked about in a prior post in 2014. How would that play out when compared with Title VII’s “ministerial exemption”.

The one change that can occur now is that employees can bring claims of sexual orientation discrimination to federal court instead of just state court.

But whether we will see that is an entirely different question. Historically, employees (and their attorneys) have preferred the looser rules of state court to bring claims of employment discrimination. It’s widely perceived that it is harder for employers to get motions for summary judgment granted in state court when compared with federal court.

This is also not the last we’ve heard about this issue; no doubt an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will be coming sooner or later. Until then, employers in Connecticut should be aware now that the prohibitions against sexual orientation are now rooted in both federal and state law.

Last week, I posted about a proposed Governor’s bill that would expand the training requirements for some employers.

However, that appears to be just a small part of a wider political battle that is about to be raised.

Yesterday, a group of Senate Democrats proposed, according to a handout, the “Largest Overhaul in Modern Connecticut History of Sexual Harassment Laws” that would significantly alter the landscape for nearly all Connecticut employers.

They’ve titled their proposal the “Time’s Up Act: Combating Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault”.  

The bill has yet to be drafted, but the outlines are being shared by Senate Democrats and will be pursued first in the Judiciary Committee (not the Labor & Public Employee Committee as you might expect).

According to their handout, the proposed bill will contain the following relating to discrimination or harassment laws:

  • Require that any notice of sexual harassment remedies and policies by e-mailed to each employee at least once a year, in addition to the required posting.
  • Increase the fines that the CHRO can impose for failing to provide notice (currently at $250)
  • Require sexual harassment training to all employers with three or more employees (instead of the current 50 or more threshold)
  • Require training of all employees, not just supervisory employees with broader topics
  • “Give CHRO the resources it needs to go out into the community and conduct on-site trainings”
  • Increase the statute of limitations from 180 days to 2 years for not just harassment complaints, but all discrimination complaints
  • Eliminate the 90 day deadline after receiving a release from the CHRO to file a lawsuit but extend it to two years after a release from the CHRO.
  • Permit the CHRO to ask for injunctive relief for employers of 3 or more employees, not the current threshold of 50.
  • Allow for punitive damages in all discrimination and harassment complaints
  • Increase funding for the CHRO
  • Create a similar model to California in passing a Private Attorney General Act, which would allow litigants to, after giving notice to the CHRO, bring a claim for violations against himself or herself, but also against other employees as well.
  • Prohibit settlement agreements that prohibit a party from disclosing information regarding sexual harassment or sexual assault.

This is still in the early stages but expect to see a lot more about this in the weeks and months to come.  No doubt, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association will have something to say about this as well.

I’ll have more details as they become available.

The 2018 session of the General Assembly started last week and increasing workplace training is a top priority for passage.

Indeed, it is not surprising that we’re starting to see the first proposed legislation to address the number of harassment claims that have been making headlines the last six months.

Governor’s Bill 5043 sets up the following changes:

  • First, it would increase the number of employers that need to provide anti-harassment training — resetting the number of employees needed to fall under the statute from 50 to 15.
  • Second, the bill would also require all employees (not just supervisors and managers) to undergo two hours of what it calls “awareness and anti-harassment compliance training” and have that training updated every five years.
  • The training that now is just focused on sexual harassment prevention in the workplace, but would also be expanded to include all types of harassment—including that based on race, color, religious creed, age, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, and national origin.
  • The training would also be required to include information about the employer’s policy against harassment, examples of the types of conduct that constitute and do not constitute harassment, strategies to prevent harassment, bystander intervention training and a discussion of “workplace civility” that shall include what is acceptable and expected behavior in the workplace.
  • The bill would require employers of three or more employees to continue to post information regarding all types of harassment and, on an annual basis, to “directly communicate such information and remedies to employees on an annual basis”.

My best guess is that this item of legislation will go through some additional tweaks to satisfy various constituencies, particularly because of the increased costs involved.

For example, expanding the training to all employees would create a massive new industry for training and, as the CBIA has said, a costly mandate as well.

There is more legislation coming down the pike in the employment law area.  This is just one of the items being floated so stay tuned.

Do you remember your first day at work?

I’m not just talking about a new job.

I mean your first day EVER at a workplace.

For my oldest daughter, today is that day.

She starts as an intern at a local manufacturer of “Highly Complex Machined Parts and Precision Cams for Aerospace, Medical and Commercial Applications” to help her focus on aerospace engineering.

This internship program started a few years ago from our town’s high school and gives students a chance to see the workplace from the inside, all under the supervision of an internship program.

When she came home earlier this week from an “interview” (which I think was more of a guided tour, truth be told), the excitement from her was palpable.

“The machines are so….cool!”

When asked to explain, she said, well, it was just “cool”.  She had a huge smile and couldn’t wait for today to come.   She loves engineering (we’re starting on college applications this fall!) and the chance to have her work at a place where engineering is at its core is pretty, well,  “cool”.

Of course, like any good father (who is also an employment lawyer), I talked to her about some workplace notions — she needed to be on time, to be helpful, and to work hard.

And I told her that she had a right to be treated fairly, to be free of harassment (not that I had any notions that is going to happen here), and that the internship program was intended as a learning tool (and thus ask questions).

Of course, I could’ve pointed her to prior blog posts on internships here, here and here but that would just be asking for the classic teenage eye roll.

I’m wise enough to know that someday she’ll have a tough day at a job.

But I hope she remembers the excitement of Day One.

Because it’s really “cool”.

Love is in the air. And in the workplace too.

But office romances have hit a 10-year-low, at least according to a new survey from CareerBuilder.com.  

Lest you think that office romances are rare – the survey showed that 36 percent of those surveyed had an office romance! Wow.

Perhaps even more surprisingly, a good deal of those romances (over 30 percent!) result in marriage.

So, who am I to quash a viable route to eternal happiness?

But, caselaw has shown that Valentine’s Day also leads to lawsuits. Plenty of them.

This week, I had the opportunity to appear on the Hostile Work Environment podcast where we address what can go wrong on Valentine’s Day.

Some of the cases I discuss are drawn from older blog posts on the subject. 

The main takeaway? Just ignore the holiday in the workplace.  By that I mean, no gifts, no flowers, and especially no Valentine’s Day cards.

Love may keep us to together, but love is a battlefield too. And in the workplace, love leads to lawsuits.

And trust me, no one writes love songs about lawsuits.

You can listen to the full podcast below.

Episode 14 – Santa Comes and Murders the Group with an Axe


Are you one of those people who thinks two is better than one? I know I am.

So, with that in mind, I’m pleased to announce that my lawfirm, Shipman & Goodwin has launched a new labor & employment law blog called “Employment Law Letter”.  The firm’s blog is an extension of the firm’s long-standing newsletter led, most recently, by my partner Brian Clemow.

And when I mean long-standing, I mean 40 years worth of production. That’s a publication record worth recognizing!

As announced by my fellow partner, Gabe Jiran, the new blog will also provide frequent and timely articles on a variety of topics as they occur.  In addition, the blog will post announcements of upcoming seminars and events, including my firm’s popular CLE webinar series.

One of the first posts of that blog highlights a CLE program that I’m doing this Tuesday via webinar entitled “Are You at Risk? An In-Depth Look at Workplace Sexual Harassment Prevention and Company Culture.”  It’s not too late to sign up for this FREE webinar here.

Never fear as well – this blog will continue just fine.  We’ll have a little less “guest posts” from my colleagues here now that there’s an additional platform for their posts and I’ll also be cross-posting over there from time to time.  But as with posts about my ABA involvement, etc., this blog will continue to share my perspectives and build from there.

See? Two really IS better than one.  Be sure to subscribe to Employmentlawletter.com today.  

Last week, I had the opportunity to again represent Connecticut as the State Delegate for the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates at the Vancouver ABA Midyear Meeting.

Among the resolutions debated was Resolution 302 which “urges all employers, and specifically all employers in the legal profession, to adopt and enforce policies and procedures that prohibit, prevent, and promptly redress harassment and retaliation based on sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and the intersectionality of sex with race and/or ethnicity.”

Although it lacks some of the specificity found in “best practices” that I’ve highlighted elsewhere, it does establish some basics for employers to use.  Some should be well known but they are worth reiterating.

What are some of the policies and procedures should have?  For example:

  • dissemination to all employees, management and directors of a clear statement that harassment, including harassment based on sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and the intersectionality of sex with race and/or ethnicity will not be tolerated;
  • confirmation that the policy applies to conduct by directors, officers, management at all levels, supervisors, employees, and third parties, at or in connection with any work related function or against anyone protected by this policy irrespective of where that conduct occurs.

For more on the ABA resolution, check out this article from the ABA Journal from last week as well.

Kudos to the ABA for taking a timely stand and to my other delegates from Connecticut at the Vancouver meeting including Austin Berescik-Johns, Livia Barndollar, Linda Randell, Barry Hawkins, Steve Curley, Karen DeMeola and Judge Alvin W. Thompson for their contributions as well.

If you have any questions on what else occurred at the ABA meeting, please feel free to send me an e-mail at the contact link above.

Are you ready for blockchain’s impact in employment law?

This seems to be the new equivalent to the buzz a decade ago that social media was going to change the world (it kinda did).

Perhaps bigger.

At this point in the post, there are probably two reactions: 1) Tell me more!; and 2) What are you even TALKING about?

So, let’s start with the second question first — what is the “blockchain”? There are many discussions, but one recent ABA article had this to say:

Blockchain is commonly defined as a decentralized digital ledger in which transactions are recorded chronologically and publicly. In its infancy stages, blockchain was the mechanism that tracked cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. However, as the technology evolved, variations such as private, permissioned, and consortium blockchains have emerged. Ultimately, blockchain technology can facilitate many types of business transactions.

Another article by a lawyer described the hype as follows:

By design, blockchains are inherently resistant to modification of the data—once recorded, the data in a block cannot be altered retroactively without obviously corrupting later blocks, which depend on the original data from the earlier block as part of the hash. It can take enormous time and energy to go back and rehash subsequent blocks to try to hide the earlier alteration, and in the meantime new blocks are being added to the chain. This makes a blockchain extremely resistant to modification.

The applications of the blockchain are still in the infancy phase.  (The hype cycle for blockchain is in the “peak of inflated expectations” period and it projects that we are still 5-10 years off from maturity.) And thus, any discussion regarding its implications in the employment law arena are necessarily speculative.

But let the speculation begin.

For example, one human resources expert suggested some uses for this technology as follows:

  • It may make the concept of a “self-sovereign identity” for employees a reality, making verification of past employment or certifications easier and more secure. (Or this breathless article about “Blockchain-based CVs Could Change Employment Forever.“)
  • Potentially, you could run payroll off the blockchain to make those transactions more secure.
  • It could also be used to help employers keep confidential health information and transmit it more easily.

It only takes some imagination to go beyond that as well.

  • “Smart” employment law contracts, in which transactions automatically happen, could be introduced into the workplace.
  • Or the blockchain could be used to secure IP rights to company products, thereby avoiding the confusion as to whether the employee or the employer “owns” such rights.

Blockchain is still very much developing and I wouldn’t be surprised if this article seemed a bit dated a few years from now.  After all, who would’ve thought you could order a car (Uber) inside a social messaging app (Facebook) just a decade ago?

But employers and their attorneys who stay up on technology should understand the potential implications for blockchain in the workplace and be ready to adapt once the technology becomes mature enough to use.  From my perspective, there’s still time to keep reading about this developing technology; the time for action is still yet to come.