You may recall that back in December 2019 (doesn’t that seem like so long ago?), the General Assembly and Governor Lamont fashioned a compromise on so-called “dual duties” legislation.
The bill required the Department of Labor to revisit a 1950 regulation that has been interpreted by some as requiring time that a server spends
Way back in April, the state first instituted a mandatory mask and face covering rule under Executive Order 7BB.
On Friday, the state updated it in Executive Order 7NNN by requiring medical documentation in order to be exempt. Here’s all that you need to know on the changes.
The new rule states: “Effective immediately, any
Words normally come easy on this blog.
Today I should be writing a simple post about a new Executive Order that will make it easier for people to file for unemployment claims if they believe their workplace is unsafe.
But I can’t. Not right now. There’s too much pain in the United States today. And
Typically, in our court system, we operate under the “American Rule” which means that parties have to pay their own attorneys’ fees in cases, regardless of whether they win or lose. (Contrast that with the English Rule which is a “loser pays” system.)
But there is one big exception to the American Rule — and
Today marks an important milestone in the development of the Connecticut Employment Law Blog. It marks the second major redesign of the blog since it was launched 10 years ago (!) this month in 2007.
Back then, the iPhone was just announced and social media was something that a few college kids played around with.
Today marks Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year and one of the holiest days of the Jewish year.
But it’s a day of business to many.
What should employers be doing for employees, though, that are celebrating the day?
There are actually a few different ways to answer the question.
The first answer, looking just
Last week I talked about the new state law regarding pregnancy discrimination that is going into effect on October 1, 2017. In that post, I mentioned a new notice that was required to comply with the law.
Although there is no set form that is required to be used, the Connecticut Department of Labor has
“President Trump is a Big Fat Idiot” or, for that matter, “Secretary Clinton is a Sore Loser.”
Let’s suppose you see one of your employees tweeting one of these expressions on Twitter during non-work hours from a personal account.
Can you discipline or even fire your employee over that tweet?
That, in essence, is at the heart of an issue that has been circulating in the sports pages (and in the President’s press briefings) over the last week due to the tweets of ESPN Sportscenter Anchor Jemele Hill from her personal account that were critical of the President.
The New York Times, in fact, ran a story on Saturday discussing the legal ramifications; it was nice to be quoted in the article.
While that article does a good job of summarizing the law in part, there’s a bit more to the story that is useful exploring (however briefly) in a blog post.
First off, people do not generally have a First Amendment protection for things that that they say that their employer finds out about.
Say you go to a white supremacist rally in, oh, Charlottesville and your employer finds out about your speech at the rally. You can be fired because of that generally.
But but but.
A state like Connecticut has a law that says that gives employee a right to sue their employer if the employer disciplines or fires the employee because of that employee exercised their free speech rights under both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, AND the Connecticut Constitution.
Importantly, the speech has to be of a matter of “public concern” and courts will look to see if the person is speaking in his or her capacity as a concerned citizen; criticisms of your own personal workplace will often times not satisfy this standard.
Political speech is almost always the type of speech that courts will consider of a “public concern”.
The Connecticut Supreme Court said in 1999 (not 2015 as The New York Times indicated) in Cotto v. United Tech. Corp. that Connecticut’s free speech statute applied to speech made at an employer’s premises.
Continue Reading Calling President An Idiot May Be Protected Speech (But Maybe Not)
Update August 16th: Late yesterday, I received further confirmation that the provisions regarding FMLA were withdrawn entirely from the proposed Democrat-led budget bill. Moreover, the General Assembly early this morning voted on a Republican version of the budget implementer, which now goes on to Governor Malloy (who has indicated he will veto the bill). That
If you’ve ever tried a case in federal or state court, you know that picking a “jury of your peers” is often a challenge for all. Sometimes, otherwise qualified prospective jurors say that they have conflicts with their schedules, while others are all too happy to feel like they are participating in a Law &