UPDATED 1/13/09
It started as an observation a few months ago when I noticed that although the visits to the blog were up, visits from state computers were down.
Then later, it was confirmed through off-the-cuff remarks by various state workers (including those at the CHRO — the state equivalent to the EEOC) that they could
About a year ago, I recapped a lawsuit brought by two former employees at the CHRO who claimed their employment was terminated improperly.
At the time, I said that the complaint, brought by Valerie Kennedy and Paula Ross, "paints a picture of an organization run-a-muck with those who are charged with protecting against discrimination, as
In this blog, I often focus on the substantive law prohibiting discrimination cases, such as those 
under ADEA. But a case decided late last week demonstrates the importance of making sure that employees follow the procedural requirements required by law under anti-discrimination provisions..
In Cassotto v. Potter (D.Conn, Oct. 21, 2008) (Hall, J.) (download here)
The sword fight (rather, word fight) between a Connecticut Law Tribune columnist and the CHRO shows no signs of abating (for the previous rounds see my earlier post here).
Round Three comes in today’s paper with a further response from Karen Lee Torre to the letter posted by CHRO Acting Executive Director Robert Brothers. Let’s just say that she shows
Yesterday, I highlighted the Acting Executive Director’s letter defending his agency from stinging criticism by a Connecticut attorney in the Connecticut Law Tribune. In that post, I indicated that if the CHRO was going to change its image, it needed to get its own house in order. For employers, this is important because a fully-functioning CHRO
Earlier this month, the Connecticut Law Tribune published a column by attorney Karen Lee Torre that was — how do I put this gently — stinging in its criticism of the CHRO and called for its elimination (you can find a link to it in an earlier post .)
Acting CHRO Executive Director Robert J. Brothers Jr. has
Nearly six months ago, a landmark ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws required employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to disabled workers, much like the federal counterpart, the ADA.
As I noted in an earlier post about the case, Curry v. Allen S. Goodman, Inc., the Court suggested that the employer had a
Late last week, the Senate finally passed the compromise version of the ADA Amendments Act, (S.3406, which is available here) which I’ve covered before. The bill needs to be reconciled with the House version, but final passage and approval by President Bush is now expected this month.
Other blogs have very adeptly recapped
AS UPDATED (9/9)
Last week, I posted about the statistics released by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. (You can view the CHRO’s Annual Report here.) Today, I continue to take a look behind the numbers and the implications for employers in Connecticut.
Among the most striking of the statistics is this fact: Human Rights Referees issued only six referee decisions for the entire fiscal year (2007-2008) that closed cases after public hearings. 48 other cases were closed through a stipulated agreement.
Why is this number significant? Because there are seven human right
s referees that are employed full-time by the State of Connecticut to handle these cases. (UPDATE: Although the statute does provide for seven, a reader noted that only five or six have actually been appointed — which may be a post for another day). And yes, for those doing the math, that works out to about one referee decision for each human rights referee for the entire year.
Now you may be asking if 6 referee decisions is actually a lot when compared with past years. The answer is unequivocally no. In 2000-2001, there were 87 public hearing referee decisions. In 2002-2003, there were still 67 referee decisions. Even for the year ending 2004-2005, 30 referee decisions were issued. That’s a drop of over 90 percent since 2001.
Despite the decreasing numbers, effective July 1, 2004, the legislature approved of seven human rights referees to serve for three year terms (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-57.) Unlike their predecessors (who served part-time), these human rights referees serve on a full-time basis. (46a-57(b)).
It’s obvious from the most recent numbers that a review of the staffing levels of the human rights referees is in order by the General Assembly — which is where the blame clearly lies for its passage of the statute requiring certain staffing levels. Perhaps the General Assembly, which is looking for ways to trim the budget, can review the CHRO’s staffing levels and determine whether having five to seven full-time human rights referees who issue a total of six decisions in a year on public hearings is the best use of taxpayer funds. (For a fairly scathing review of the CHRO, the Law Tribune has a column this week by Karen Lee Torre.)Continue Reading Numbers Galore, Part II: Seven Full-time CHRO Human Rights Referees for Six Referee Decisions
The EEOC today released a "comprehensive question-and-answer guide" (but not regulations) addressing how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) should be applied to a wide variety of performance and conduct issues. You can download the FAQs at their website here.
In a press release accompanying the document, the EEOC noted that it released the guide in response