The EEOC issued new technical guidance for employers this week to provide them with some direction on how to deal with workers with caregi
ving responsibilities.
The document, "Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities," is available online here supplements previous guidance entitled "Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities".
As
Record numbers of discrimination complaints were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to a MSNBC column:
Discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission jumped 15 percent in fiscal 2008 to 95,402 — the highest level since the agency opened in 1965, said spokesman David Grinberg. That is up from 82,792 claims
UPDATED 3/2/09 with New Link to Proposed Regulations
The text of the proposed new regulations on GINA have finally trickled out (you can download a copy here).
Ross Runkel (whose stakes a claim to being "First in Employment Law") finally tracked it down earlier today.
It’s a 58-page document though much of what it contains
UPDATED 3/1/09
The EEOC released proposed regulations regarding the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act on February 25, 2009. The Washington Labor & Employment Wire (H/T) received and advance copy; the regulations are expected to be published later on Thursday or F
riday and the 60-day comment period will begin then. (UPDATED: The text of the
Nearly 15 years ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court came out with a pair of decisions that seemed to put to rest the question of whether the CHRO was authorized to award emotional distress damages to employees who filed suit and prevailed in state law employment discrimination cases.
But, as discussed below, the CHRO has lately been suggesting otherwise. This has important implications to employers in defending against such claims. In order to understand where we are, we need to look back at some of the key cases and issues related to them, so bear with me for a bit.
The Background Cases
yment discrimination claims involving race, gender, physical disability, age and the like. It’s holding was unequivocal: "The issue before the court is whether General Statutes § 46a-86 authorizes the award of damages for emotional distress and attorney’s fees for a violation of General Statutes § 46a-60(a)(1). We conclude that it does not." (Open disclosure: My current firm successfully represented the hospital in that matter.)The Supreme Court Reintroduces Such Claims, At Least According to the CHRO
Case closed right? Not according to the CHRO, which has started using another case as the basis for re-introducing emotional distress awards BACK into employment discrimination claims. Specifically, in arguments to CHRO hearing officers and in mediations, CHRO staff refer to CHRO v. Board of Education of Cheshire, 270 Conn. 665 (2004), in which a student claimed discrimination against a public school principal and board of education. The CHRO’s premise is that while Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-58 can’t be used to bring garden-variety employment discrimination claims, it can be used to piggyback other claims through it.
Because the Court in Cheshire doesn’t overturn its prior cases and is dealing with a student’s discrimination claim, it’s admittedly a bit difficult to parse the logic, but there’s plenty of discussion in Cheshire about how some types of other discrimination claims can allow the complainant to recover emotional distress damages. Continue Reading Are Emotional Distress Damages Available at the CHRO for State Employment Discrimination Claims? Courts Suggest No; CHRO Suggests Yes
To bring state law employment discrimination claims to court, it is well-known that an employee has to first file the claim with the state agency responsible for investigating the claim (the CHRO) (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-101(a)). And most people believe that all the employee has to do is then wait for the CHRO
There’s a relatively new children’s book out now entitled, "The Wolf Who Cried Boy". It’s a humorous take on the old fable and I read it outloud one evening this week at home.
I can’t help but be reminded of both the classic and new story, reading all of the hyperbole and hype of the last 24 hours
UPDATED 1/26/09
A part-time secretary who worked for three weeks before resigning is entitled to $15,000 in emotional distress damages and six months back pay, according to a recent CHRO Hearing Officer decision. The case is particularly notable because the company was Claywell Electric, run by the now-jailed Kurt Claywell.
The employer in the case
Recently released minutes from a December 2008 meeting (available here) of the CHRO commissioners reveal that an outside search firm is in the process of being retained to assist with an search for a new Executive Director.
The minutes — which are released approximately one month after the original meeting — discuss the status of the
In a post yesterday, I indicated that the CHRO’s website filters (and some other state agencies) were still blocking access to, among other websites, Findlaw. Although that fact had been confirmed through multiple reliable sources, it appears that the information from those sources may have been out of date.
I have since learned that