Human Resources (HR) Compliance

In a decision that will be officially released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld the dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim against Marvelwood School, an independent school in Kent, Connecticut. In doing so, the Court turned back an attempt to limit the employment-at-will doctrine and provided employers in Connecticut with reassurance that wrongful discharge claims will be appropriately limited.

The case, Zweig v. Marvelwood School, can be viewed here.

(An upfront disclosure: My firm represented the employer here and I represented the school on the successful appeal.) 

The facts of the case are relatively straightforward and are summarized in the court’s decision. The plaintiff Aaron Zweig was employed by the defendant Marvelwood School as a history teacher and school’s Director of Food Studies. That role required him to establish and maintain a garden on campus and use it to teach a class on food studies.

In May, 2015, Mr. Zweig allegedly objected to the school’s suggestion that telephone poles that had been treated with creosote, a pesticide and wood preservative, be used to make raised beds in the garden because he believed that the chemical posed a health risk to himself and his students.


Continue Reading Connecticut Appellate Court Rejects Challenge to At-Will Employment Doctrine

The headlines from the American Rescue Plan Act are all about the $1400 recovery rebate credits.

But for employers, there are a lot more details about the tax issues and employee benefit issues that are contained within ARPA.

My colleagues have prepared a thorough summary on our sister blog, Employment Law Letter.  One item that

It’s late March, which means that it’s too soon to predict which bills at the Connecticut General Assembly are going to have enough support for final passage, but not too soon to take a look at what is on the table.

By “on the table”, I mean bills that have been voted out of the

Big changes are on the way for employers in Connecticut that have been operating for close to a year under “Sector Rules” — mandatory practices that were set out by the state that businesses had to follow in order to reopen.

All that changes effective March 19th. 

Late Friday, the state updated the website regarding

Today, I bring back one of my favorite recurring features – my conversations with employee-side attorney Nina Pirrotti.

As we’ve moved our conversations (“The Dialogue”) from written to virtual format, we still find the effects on employment law by the pandemic to be wide-ranging.  While vaccinations are welcome, the move to remote work has created

Yesterday, Governor Lamont announced a major series of rollbacks of COVID-19-related restrictions for businesses. We’re still getting all the details, but for employers, the key thing to understand first with all the rollbacks is that certain things are not being rolled back.

  • Face coverings and masks continue to be required
  • Bars that only serve

Remember 2010?

Those were the days of Lady Gaga’s “Meat Dress”. You could also play “Angry Birds” on your new smartphone.

And discrimination complaints to the EEOC were about at their all-time high.

But over the last few years — and in particular, last year — discrimination and retaliation claims have been down.

A LOT.

Since March of 2020 (has it really been a year?!), the Governor has ordered employers to allow employees to work from home if they can in many industries.  Many other employers have just decided to do it anyways.

Working from home has been far from a temporary thing; it’s THE thing.

But what about providing

With many workplaces now going on a year with remote workers, issues that were thought to be temporary blips are turning into major headaches.

Suppose your office in Stamford, Connecticut is closed and employee are allowed to work remotely.

What happens to those New York residents who are now working from home 24/7?

What about