Update August 16th: Late yesterday, I received further confirmation that the provisions regarding FMLA were withdrawn entirely from the proposed Democrat-led budget bill.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 &…
For those unfamiliar with the way a lot of Connecticut laws get implemented, October 1st could seem like just another day. (Though for my kids, they would be impressed that it was a different October 1st in 1982 that EPCOT opened at Disney World.)
But a lot of bills that are passed by the Connecticut General Assembly go into effect on October 1st each year. This year is no exception.
For employers, the biggest of these bills is the new law concerning “Pregnant Women in the Workplace”. I’ve previously recapped the law for pregnant employees in a prior post way back in May, but because we’re getting close to implementation, it’s time for a little refresher.
Existing law makes it a discriminatory practice to:
- To terminate a woman’s employment because of her pregnancy;
- to refuse to grant to that employee a reasonable leave of absence for disability resulting from her pregnancy;
- to deny to that employee, who is disabled as a result of pregnancy, any compensation to which she is entitled as a result of the accumulation of disability or leave benefits accrued pursuant to plans maintained by the employer;
- to fail or refuse to reinstate the employee to her original job or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other service credits upon her signifying her intent to return unless, in the case of a private employer, the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so.
Those rules remain unchanged. But the new law revises some other provisions and adds more to the protections. Effective October 1st, it will now also be unlawful to:
- Limit, segregate or classify the pregnant employee in a way that would deprive her of employment opportunities due to her pregnancy;
- Discriminate against an employee or job applicant on the basis of her pregnancy in the terms or conditions of her employment;
- Fail or refuse to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee or job applicant due to her pregnancy, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship;
- Deny employment opportunities to an employee or job applicant if the denial is due to the request for a reasonable accommodation due to her pregnancy;
- Force an employee or job applicant affected by pregnancy to accept a reasonable accommodation if she (i) does not have known limitation related to her pregnancy, or (ii) does not require a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential duties related to her employment;
- Require an employee to take a leave of absence if a reasonable accommodation can be provided in lieu of the leave; and
- Retaliate against an employee in the terms, conditions or privileges of her employment based upon the employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation.
The changes don’t stop there. The new law also explains that the word “pregnancy” will also include “pregnancy, childbirth or a related condition, including but not limited to, lactation”. It also expands the definition of “reasonable accommodation ” and “undue hardship”.
- “Reasonable Accommodation” means, but is not limited to, being permitted to sit while working, more frequent or longer breaks, periodic rest, assistance with manual labor, job restructuring, light duty assignment, modified work schedules, temporary transfers to less strenuous or hazardous work, time off to recover from childbirth or break time and appropriate facilities for expressing breast milk; and
- “Undue Hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as (A) the nature and cost of the accommodation; (B) the overall financial resources of the employer; (C) the overall size of the business of the employer with respect to the number of employees, and the number, type and location of its facilities; and (D) the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of the accommodation upon the operation of the employer.
A lot has been made of the recent district court decision on legal job protections for qualifying medical marijuana patients.
But the decision has another piece that has been overlooked and which may cause employers some heartburn as well.
The “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress” cause of action has been on life support for…
There’s an old(?) Bonnie Raitt song that my parents used to listen to when I was in college called “Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About”. It’s about a crush, but the intro could be just as applicable to a new court decision. The lyrics start: “People are talkin’, talkin’ ’bout people, I hear…
Labor Day has come and gone. Summer is over. Can we all stop listening to Despacito now. (Please?)
But it’s time to look at a decision that came out during the dog days of summer that might have been overlooked. A recent federal district court case (Noffsinger v. SSN Niantic Operating Co. LLC, download…
The Connecticut Appellate Court today released an important disability discrimination decision that gives employers some support for employees who struggle with employees who ask for “accommodations” for an indefinite leave for a medical condition.
The case ostensibly addresses the request for “indefinite leave” which I’ve previously talked about it in prior posts.
But the case…
It never seems to fail; I go on vacation and the Connecticut Supreme Court issues one of the few employment law decisions it issues every year during that week.
Fortunately for all of us, it concerns the fluctuating work week method of overtime computation which most employers in the state consciously either avoid or try…