As I’ve said in prior posts, the General Assembly isn’t exactly precise at times when writing legislation.  (One is reminded by the quote regarding sausage making.)

One issue that pops up from time to time is whether an employer need be “Connecticut-based” to be covered by Connecticut state laws, particularly as it applies to

Imagine, hypothetically, that you are the head of a massive technology company.  You decide one day that you want to layoff, say, 50 percent of the workforce tomorrow while offering employees a severance agreement. What should you know?

My colleagues, Gabe Jiran and Keegan Drenosky, did a whole webinar on the subject last month that

On November 1 at 9 a.m., I’ll be making a return appearance to WNPR’s award-winning Where We Live show.  You can listen live or download it as a podcast.

Tomorrow’s topic is one that we never would’ve dreamed of years ago — Long COVID.

Long COVID is the term that the CDC uses to

As I’ve mentioned before, our firm has been producing a series of free webinars covering various employment law topics our clients have asked us to talk about. You can watch any of our recorded webinars and find more information about our upcoming presentations here.

I recently presented with my colleagues Sarah Niemiroski and Sheridan King

If you look at the state Department of Labor website, you’ll find a notation about “proposed amended FMLA regulations” that have not yet been put into place. It adds “approval pending”.

As the modern saying goes: Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

In fact, last month – as I previewed in

When I got my first Macintosh computer in college, I was fascinated by little soundbites that you could add and play.

One of my favorites was a clip from the movie “2001” where Hal, the seemingly sentient space computer, says to an astronaut: “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” in response to

Back in January 2020, I was one of the first legal bloggers to highlight the risks of a new coronavirus and asking the question: What if it spreads.  Over the next several weeks, I started to raise the alarm — so much so that my friend Kate called me out for being a “doomsday lawyer”. 

A while back, my colleagues and I talked about new final proposed regulations implementing the revised CTFMLA law.

Turns out that “final” doesn’t actually mean FINAL.

On June 28, 2022, the Legislation Regulation Review Committee (LRCC) rejected the so-called “final” regulation without prejudice and asked that a number of corrections be made to the regulations.

One of the things I love to do is play golf. It’s mentally challenging, (somewhat) physically demanding, and you always strive for perfection.

That said, one of the things that I’m not very good at is golf itself.  Sure, I’m better than some but as someone once joked to me:  You can be good golfer

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