Photo of Daniel Schwartz

Dan represents employers in various employment law matters such as employment discrimination, restrictive covenants, human resources, retaliation and whistle blowing, and wage and hour issues. He has extensive trial and litigation experience in both federal and state courts in a variety of areas, including commercial litigation and trade secret enforcement. Dan is the author of the independent Connecticut Employment Law Blog. The blog discusses new and noteworthy events in labor and employment law on a daily basis.

One of the quirks of discrimination law in Connecticut concerns sexual orientation.  Back in 1991, the General Assembly passed a wide-ranging bill that added sexual orientation as one of the protected classes that employers could not base decisions on.

Sort of.

Rather than add sexual orientation to the key employment law statute that bars discrimination

One of the reasons I’m working on this project is to highlight the mandates and requirements that employers in the state need to follow. Some can lead to possible litigation; some can lead to, well, something less.

Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51jj is an example of the something less. The key language of the provision

In my new series (you can read the background here), I’m going to highlight an employment law that employers in Connecticut need to follow. Some of them can lead to lawsuits; some may just lead to fines.   I’ve titled this the “Employment Law Checklist Project”.

First up: Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40h.  This law

A bill that would have brought the state’s tipping regulations in line with federal regulations was not brought up for a veto override vote earlier this week. I previously covered the subject in prior posts here and here.

According to a report in CT Mirror, a “deal” is now being sought that would allow

Over the weekend, President Trump tweeted out that several prominent “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen” (who, it shouldn’t have to be said but does, are all American citizens, most of whom were born in the United States) should  “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

This language has,

Late Friday, Governor Lamont vetoed House Bill 5001, which I had highlighted in an earlier post as being passed during the waning hours of the legislative session.

That bill would have rescinded a particular labor regulation and required the Department of Labor to promulgate a new regulation in its place.

In vetoing the measure,

As the dust continues to settle from the General Assembly, bills that didn’t get a lot of press beforehand are continuing to come into the light.

One of them is new Public Act 19-95, which was just signed by Governor Lamont yesterday.

The bill treats being a member of the “Civil Air Patrol”

With Independence Day nearly upon us (and with many offices on skeleton crews this week), I thought I would take a very brief look back at a case that has particular relevance to the Grand Old Flag and displays of patriotism in the workplace.

If you’ve never read about Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.,

Update: Governor Lamont vetoed this bill on July 12, 2019.  

Bear with me because this is a story about how a little provision slipped in at the last minute and buried deep in a innocuously-titled bill will have big implications for the restaurant industry in Connecticut.

You might have missed House Bill 5001 (now Public