As I’ve lamented from my very first post, too often the press focuses on new cases that are brought without placing them in context. Yet every month, federal and state courts in Connecticut consider dozens of employment law cases that never make the headlines.
One
The Second Circuit today reinstated claims brought by a black firefighter against the City of New Haven alleging that he was unfairly denied promotion to the position of lieutenant because of the city’s scoring of a 2003 promotional exam. (I covered the original lawsuit back in 2009 here.)
The decision in Briscoe v. City
The running joke by employment lawyers is that even though Connecticut is an at-will employment state, employees can sue their employers at any time for any reason or no reason at all. (I’ll wait while you laugh groan.)
The joke touches on the perception by employers that employees can seemingly file the most frivolous of complaints. And the perception that courts will not take any action to dismiss those claims.
A new case out of the federal district court in Connecticut shows how that perception can be wrong, however.
In Friedman v. USPS, a letter carrier (who suffered from lateral epicondylitis — tennis elbow) claimed that employer violated the ADA when in changed his status even though it did not affect his income, his seniority, his ability to secure further employment with USPS or cause him any actual or imminent economic injury.
When the employer filed for summary judgment, it did not bother to go through the normal burden-shifting analysis. Rather, it said that the employee lacked “standing” (or the right) to proceed with his claims at all.
Why?Continue Reading Court: No Injury by Employer = No Standing = No Case
News outlets this morning reported that the plaintiffs (a group of firefighters in New Haven) in the Ricci v. DeStefano reverse discrimination case were awarded damages of about $2 million (plus attorneys fees of $3 million).
What the reports don’t really get into, however, is exactly how that has come about. Turns out that the
The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled (in a decision that will be effective August 2, 2011) that the ministerial exception found under the First Amendment bars certain employment related claims brought against religious institutions.
The court’s unanimous decision in Dayner v. Archdiocese of
To the surprise of absolutely no one, earlier this month Governor Malloy signed the new Paid Sick Leave and the new Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination bills.
With the Governor’s approval, the paid sick leave bill now becomes effective January 1, 2012.
The anti-discrimination provisions of the gender identity bill are effective October 1, 2011.
For more
UPDATED 7/7/11
With yesterday’s stunning announcement that all proceedings at the Office of Public Hearings are suspended indefinitely (see this notice), the question that arises is: What Happens Next?
The answer is only known to the Governor and staff at the CHRO.
But last year, my law partner, Joshua Hawks-Ladds published a
Back in February 2009, I talked at length about whether compensatory damages (for things such as emotional distress) was properly awarded in employment discrimination claims that proceeded to a hearing at the CHRO. I went on to say back then that I believed the agency and the human rights referees at the agency had been
Over the last 24 hours, there’s been a lot written about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes. Frankly, all of them are starting to say the same thing: The decision is going to hamper all class-action discrimination cases going forward.
But that statement tends to simplify the decision a bit too much. In my view, what the decision stands for is that it will be increasingly unlikely that the mega-class action (the one that covers an entire company) will be able to proceed without a very specific and tangible practice or policy that the plaintiffs can point too.
What types of things are we talking about? Well, it would be unlikely, but suppose a company had a mandatory retirement age of 60 but without a legitimate basis for doing so. In essence, it was a company-wide practice of discriminating against older workers. That type of class action will probably survive.
Continue Reading Wal-Mart v. Dukes: What The Class-Action Decision Really Means for Employers
Back in March, I reported on the likelihood of a victory for Wal-Mart in an important class action case up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
This morning, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the class action against the nation’s largest employer, saying, in essence, that the