Human Resources (HR) Compliance

It would be easy to say that the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday has nothing to do with the workplace and therefore presents no employment law issues.

But such an approach would not only be foolish, it would be wrong.

The full impact of the decision will be felt for an entire generation while a full analysis of the decision’s impact will take some more time too (though my partners have done a great job with one here).  But it’s apparent from the first few reads of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is that it presents a real challenge for employers and is so disruptive in so many ways both for employers and employees.

First, the decision minimizes (at best) or ignores (at worst) the concept of “stare decisis” which is that the Court’s prior decisions become binding precedent — and therefore have meaning.  People can rely on those decisions to predict what will happen next and respect the decision once it gets made.  If the Court undermines that concept, it risks becoming exactly like the much maligned National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is a federal agency that, some would argue, changes its mind depending on how the Board is composed (whether Democrat majority or Republican).  For example of such a flip flop, see one of my prior posts about the NLRB here.

This is not a good thing; the Rule of Law depends on people having some faith in the institution itself.  If people think the system is rigged to whatever party is in power, then the more likely they will be to minimize its importance or keep fighting until they think the system is in their favor.  Stare Decisis provided some measure of comfort to parties and gave employers the opportunity to plan for the future.

Continue Reading Dobbs and the Impact of the Court’s Decision for Employers

Imagine, as that old movie plot goes, falling asleep 25 years ago and waking up now. Beyond the technology, there might be nothing stranger than driving on Connecticut highways and seeing billboards for selling cannabis (in Massachusetts) nearly every mile.  (Though, don’t look now, but the state is banning those.)

Well, it’s about to

With inflation running rampant, it’s easy to forget that changes to the state’s minimum wage continue to roll out.  Ever since the passage of the wage hikes a few years ago, employers have been dealing with $1 increases each year.

On July 1, 2022, the minimum wage per hour will increase to $14/hour.  Next year,

It’s Wednesday afternoon and you get an email from a service that receives lawsuits on your behalf.

“Congratulations! You are the recipient of a new lawsuit!”

No, it doesn’t really say that.

Rather, it’ll basically attach a copy of the lawsuit and remind you that the clock is ticking for a response.

It might as

With union organizing efforts making headlines at Amazon and Starbucks, a new bill in Connecticut is designed to make it even easier for unions to win organizing votes.

A bill banning so-called “captive audience” meetings won final approval from the Connecticut General Assembly late Friday; it moves to the Governor’s office where his approval

Obviously, the big news of last week was that a federal court struck down the mask mandate for public transportation.

But from a bigger employment law perspective, there may be other rules with a shelf life too. The road we are travelling on is not in a straight line.  The big question for now is

After several years of hiccups, the state-run Connecticut Retirement Security Authority, is finally launching this Spring with upcoming deadlines for employers that don’t offer employees a retirement plan.

Connecticut employers with five or more employees are required to join the program if they do not offer a retirement plan.  Registration opened for employers on