Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee (by a 25-16 vote) approved of Senate Bill 132, being labelled by it’s proponents as the “Time’s Up” bill but covers both harassment and discrimination cases. I covered an announcement of this a while back.  

As the bill moves closer to consideration now to the state Senate, it’s time for employers to start paying attention to what’s in the bill.  The CBIA has expressed concerns about some aspects of the bill.

Here are a few highlights:

  • To require employers to provide every employee with information concerning the “illegality of sexual harassment and remedies available to victimes of sexual harassment”.
  • To require employers of three or more employees (currently set at 50) to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training and with such training being provided not just to supervisory employees, but all employees.
  • To eliminate affirmative defenses that employers otherwise have that: “(i) the claim of sexual harassment was properly investigated, immediate corrective action was taken and no act of sexual harassment subsequently occurred, (ii) the claim of sexual harassment was not reported to a respondent prior to the filing of a complaint with the commission, (iii) an employer has a policy of prohibiting sexual harassment or recently trained its employees on sexual harassment in accordance with subdivision (15) of section 46a-54, as amended by this act, or (iv) the sexual harassment was not severe or pervasive.”  These defenses would only be allowed to be introduced on the question of damages.
  • To prohibit employers from modifying the “conditions of employment” of the employee making the claim of sexual harassment when the employer takes “immediate corrective action”, unless employee agrees in writing to such a modification.
  • To allow the CHRO to order the promotion of an employee in response to a claim of discrimination.
  • To allow claims of discrimination that occur on or after October 1, 2018 to be subject to a new three-year statute of limitation, instead of the current 180 day requirement.
  • To allow punitive damages for discrimination claims to be awarded in some instances.
  • To allow lawsuits to be brought two years after the CHRO releases jurisdiction over a discrimination, instead of the 90 day requirement.

There’s more as well, so employers are best advised to review it and talk with their attorneys about the impact that this bill might have on their workplace.

From a procedural perspective, the change in the statute of limitations would be significant.

Take this example: Suppose an alleged discriminatory act took place on May 15, 2019.  An employee would then have until (approximately) May 15, 2022 to bring a CHRO charge.  The CHRO could investigate the claim for a while — say a year and release jurisdiction on May 15, 2023.  The employee could then have two additional years to bring suit in Court — taking it out to May 15, 2025.  Add another 18-24 months before a trial date, at best.

Ultimately, this could result in a claim being heard nearly eight years (or more!) after the alleged discrimination took place.

Supervisors may have long since left the company and evidence might not be available anymore for employers to defend themselves.  All told, these types of delays were exactly the type of issue that a shorter statute of limitations was designed to prevent.  Companies would be at a significant disadvantage in defending themselves, all the while damages continue to accrue.

This bill would also require the CHRO to renegotiate significantly large portions of the worksharing agreement in place with the EEOC.

There is certainly momentum for some type of action here; stay tuned to see what further modifications are made to this bill.

There’s been a lot in the news of late about “outrageous” provisions found in an separation agreement between an employer and an employee, like confidentiality.  Indeed, some proposed legislation would restrict the use of some provisions.  

So I thought it would be helpful to go over what we typically see in a separation agreement.

First a big caveat: My description of a “typical” agreement does not mean that these provisions are in every agreement or even that these provisions ought to be in some agreements. Each separation or settlement has differing facts that may make certain provisions more important than others. And some employers or employees negotiate differently.

In other words, there is not a one-size-fits-all to this and employers should definitely not attempt to do this without legal guidance.

One more caveat, back in 2009, I provided a link to a great checklist that existed at the time about key provisions to have in a separation agreement. Nearly 10 years later, it still holds up pretty well.  You could do a lot worse than rely on that.

So what are typical provisions?

  1.  Last Day of Employment
  2. Benefits Upon Separation of Employment
  3. A Release of all possible claims related to employment (maybe even broader) with lots of legalese
  4. Confidentiality of Agreement
  5. Nondisparagement of one or more of the parties
  6. No Admission of Liability
  7. No Obligation by Employer to Re-Hire
  8. Return of Property
  9. Affirmation of Any Prior Restrictive Covenants (such as Non-Compete periods)
  10. References or Removal of Negative Information from Personnel File
  11. Many more technical provisions regarding what the governing law is, indemnification in case of breach, incorporation provisions making sure this agreement supersedes prior agreements, and, OWBPA-compliant provisions if necessary.

So, before you read headlines or “expert” commentary expressing shock that a separation agreement contains a confidentiality provision, understand that typically these are sought by both an employer and employee.  There may be good reasons that both have for wanting to keep the reasons for the separation and any separation agreement private.

It happened again, last week.  An employer was sued.

Wait, what’s that? A new lawsuit gets filed EVERY day against employers?  (Actually, in federal court, at least 11885 employment lawsuits were filed in 2017. Far more than one a day.)

But last week, there were a bunch of headlines – a new sexual harassment lawsuit filed against a major Connecticut employer.

(I’m not going to mention it here for reasons that will become apparent in a second).

News organizations ate the new lawsuit up picking up scurrilous allegations that were even denied by some of the people involved.

This, of course, isn’t the first time that this happened — that is, news organizations publishing the fact that a lawsuit was filed.

Why? Is it really news?

Reporters would say yes, the public has a right to know.  And in fairness to them, a new lawsuit may have some newsworthiness.

But I’d argue that many reports about lawsuits get published for far simpler reasons — they’re easy to write about.  The facts are laid out in a complaint; all that’s really needed is a few quotes and a response from the employers and the story writes itself.

Typically, the news stories aren’t even written on the fly; a lawyer may “tip off” the reporter that the lawsuit is coming and offer “exclusive” interview to the reporter that coincides with the lawsuit.

At that point, the employer is left to say that it doesn’t comment on pending legal matters or that it’s still “investigating” the claims.

And even when the employer files its motion to dismiss, or answer, or actual responsive pleading, the press has long since moved on.

Employers must recognize this and be prepared to either respond to the press quickly, or figure out your plan ahead of time.

Communications expert Andrea Obston goes one step further and notes that with social media, your company’s story is being told — so you might as well get involved in the conversation.

In today’s on-line world, it’s easy for anyone to tell your story.  Don’t let them.  Tell it yourself.  Tell it authentically and tell it often.  If you don’t, expect someone else to do it for you – whether you like it or not.

Employment lawsuits are easy news. You should understand that by now.   Knowing what to do next may at least position your company as something different than just today’s punching bag.

Employment lawsuits can be more than just legal matters nowadays; the pressure of the online world can be huge. Understanding the stakes now in play are important for employers to understand as they defend against such lawsuits.

You’ve agonized over firing an employee.  You hired her over a year ago and it just isn’t working out.  The employee is kind, conscientious and punctual, but just doesn’t have the skills needed for the particular position.

But you’ve made up your mind. You’re firing her at a meeting this afternoon.

In that meeting, the employee stops you part way to say that she too has been thinking the job hasn’t been a good fit and asks if she can resign instead.

Can you still accept the employee’s resignation?

It may seem obvious, but I’ve had more than a few discussions with employers who are caught offguard with such a request.  (In some other circumstances, the employer may ask if they can allow the employee to resign in lieu of termination. Gets to the same point.)

The answer is yes, you can allow the employee to resign. Even if you originally were firing them.

There’s no law that requires employers to stick with a decision that they are having second thoughts. You can withdraw a termination, you can change the termination to a resignation. It’s really up to you and the employee.

But here’s a related question. Can the employee still collect unemployment benefits if they “resign”?

Again, the answer is yes.  Mostly.

As the Department of Labor notes, the “general  rule  is  that  a  person who  voluntarily  leaves  suitable  work without good cause attributable to the employer is not eligible for benefits.”

But an employer who indicates that it is going to fire an employee and “allows” the employee to resign, is probably establishing the “good cause to be attributable to the employer” because it relates to the wages, hours or working conditions of the job.

There are exceptions, of course, but employers who contest unemployment of an employee that they “allowed” to resign in lieu of termination, should really be thinking long and hard about such a decision.

And, as another blog post reminds, “forcing” an employee to resign isn’t going to fly in many instances either.

Firing an employee isn’t easy. It shouldn’t be. But doing it the right way isn’t that hard either.

Three years ago, I floated the idea that perhaps an agency could come up with a modest “amnesty” program that would give employers a chance to get into compliance with FLSA laws, without facing the draconian consequences such an admission might entail.

Now, late yesterday, the United States Department of Labor announced its own pilot program doing exactly this. 

It’s being called the “PAID” program (Payroll Audit Independent Determination), and is designed to expedite “resolution of inadvertent overtime and minimum wage violations under the FLSA.”

According to a press release:

Employees will receive 100 percent of the back wages paid, without having to pay any litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees, or other costs that may be applicable to private actions.

The PAID program facilitates resolution of potential violations, without litigation, and ensures employees promptly receive the wages they are owed.  Under this program, the Wage and Hour Division will oversee resolution of the potential violations by assessing the amount of wages due and supervising their payment to employees.

The Division will not impose penalties or liquidated damages to finalize a settlement for employers who choose to participate in the PAID program and proactively work with the Division to fix and resolve their potential compensation errors.

But there will be limits.  Employers who are in litigation or currently under investigation are excluded, for example.  Moreover, it is a one-time use; employers can’t keep coming back under it.  And it will require employers to take other steps as well.

The pilot program is being run nationwide for approximately six months, after which the Department will evaluate the pilot program and consider future options.

Employers and their counsel are going to need to do a crash course to learn about its availability.  Some FAQ are available on the DOL website but there’s still more that needs to be filled in.

It’s clear, for example, that this won’t necessarily prevent a private lawsuit from flowing or from employees who might reject this and seek out their own counsel.

And for employers in Connecticut, a word of extreme caution:  There will still be the issue of STATE law violations that aren’t addressed by this program.

Indeed, when I floated this idea with a CT Department of Labor official years ago, he noted that legislation would have to be written because the CTDOL didn’t have the ability to create such a program.

I will continue to monitor this as well as my firm but if you have any interest in FLSA issues, you’ll want to contact your employment counsel to stay up to date on this very important development.

 

 

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.