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.

In a 3-2 decision officially released today, the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on a little-used statute to expand the narrow wrongful discharge claim available to employees who believe they have been fired in violation of an important public policy.

The case is one that only an employment lawyer could love as it turns on definitions

In a non-election year, the Connecticut legislature always seems to be extra busy considering workplace-related bills.

This year is no exception. If anything, it feels like it’s hit another gear. CTNewsJunkie had a detailed article yesterday about the subject.

The Labor & Public Employees Committee has considered, and is considering, a wide array of bills

Well, it’s officially a trend: Employers are increasingly using personality tests for hiring decisions.

At least according to a recent The New York Times article which describes this as a burgeoning $2 billion industry.

While not new, personality tests are finding new traction as employers hire for remote work positions that have a different skill

Last week, the NLRB issued a landmark decision in McLaren Macomb that is already shaking up how private employers (both unionized and non-unionized) should consider severance agreements.

My colleagues have the full recap of the decision over at our sister blog, Employment Law Letter, from Friday and I highly recommend reading that first.

The key

Sure, I know you probably want to read about the NLRB’s decision this week questioning the legality of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements for employees who aren’t supervisors. We’ll have more on that soon. (For now, Jon Hyman’s summary is a worthy substitute.)

But in the meantime, I wanted to highlight something

Over on our sister blog, the Employment Law Letter (you’ve subscribed to that one, right?), my colleague Marc Lombardi has word of a potential $17B penalty for potential violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The case arises from the allegations that White Castle required employees to scan their fingerprint in order to access

Let me preface what I’m about to say with a huge caveat: I’ve seen no empirical studies or surveys of employers to determine whether or not they are complying with the updated Connecticut FMLA law.

But having gotten that out of the way, I remain concerned that there are a ton of small employers out