One of the reasons I’m working on this project is to highlight the mandates and requirements that employers in the state need to follow. Some can lead to possible litigation; some can lead to, well, something less.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51jj is an example of the something less. The key language of the provision
In my new series (you can read the background here), I’m going to highlight an employment law that employers in Connecticut need to follow. Some of them can lead to lawsuits; some may just lead to fines. I’ve titled this the “Employment Law Checklist Project”.
First up: Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40h. This law
One of my colleagues, Mike Chase has, for the last several years, been tweeting at “Crime a Day” about the various federal criminal laws and regulations that we have. Or rather, the thousands upon thousands of them. In fact, Mike has now put out a great book “How to Become a Federal Criminal” that is
Over the weekend, President Trump tweeted out that several prominent “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen” (who, it shouldn’t have to be said but does, are all American citizens, most of whom were born in the United States) should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”
This language has,
Late Friday, Governor Lamont vetoed House Bill 5001, which I had highlighted in an earlier post as being passed during the waning hours of the legislative session.
That bill would have rescinded a particular labor regulation and required the Department of Labor to promulgate a new regulation in its place.
In vetoing the measure,
With Independence Day nearly upon us (and with many offices on skeleton crews this week), I thought I would take a very brief look back at a case that has particular relevance to the Grand Old Flag and displays of patriotism in the workplace.
If you’ve never read about Cotto v. United Technologies Corp.,
Update: Governor Lamont vetoed this bill on July 12, 2019.
Bear with me because this is a story about how a little provision slipped in at the last minute and buried deep in a innocuously-titled bill will have big implications for the restaurant industry in Connecticut.
At the stroke of midnight last night, the 2019 General Assembly came to a close.
I think it’s fair to say that 2019 will go down in history not for the number of bills impacting employers, but for the breadth of the few that passed.
I’ve recapped the bills in some prior posts, but here’s
If you’re a Connecticut employer, new requirements regarding training and posting — as well as changes to the underlying anti-discrimination law — should be a must-read.
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, the General Assembly passed a series of revisions to Senate Bill 3, which itself passed over the weekend. Together, these series of changes (S.B. 1111 and S.B. 3) will impact employers of all sizes and cases at the CHRO.
In essence, you had a bill that was amended after it already passed. Rather than get into what was in the original bill vs. final bill, I thought it might be helpful just to recap what is in the final version of the bills, as combined.
Governor Lamont is expected to sign these bills in the next week or so.
To be clear, this recap should not be a substitute for legal advice and this recap only addresses some of the most relevant private employer provisions; there’s some provisions in there regarding EEO officers for state agencies that are beyond the scope of this recap. Credit should also be given to the state’s OLR Bill Analysis as well.
TRAINING
Currently, employers with at least 50 employees are required to give their supervisors two hours of training on state and federal sexual harassment laws and remedies.
The new law will require employers of all sizes to give training to supervisors by October 1, 2020 (or within six months of their assumption of supervisory duties, after that time).
For employers with 3 or more employees, the training must also be given to all other employees also by October 1, 2020 (or within six months of hire, after that time.)
In both instances, the training must be updated every ten years by employers, though it doesn’t seem to be the same two hours — just a “supplemental” update. Also, any employee (including supervisor) trained since October 1, 2018 is exempt from being “retrained” a second time.
The bill requires CHRO to develop a free online training video or other interactive method. If that’s done on time, employers will have to give the training within six months of an employee’s start date.
If employers don’t provide training, it will now be a “discriminatory practice” that may allow employees to bring an action in the CHRO (or court). The fine for failing to provide training will be $750.
NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES
The new law (piggybacking on existing law which requires a notice be posted regarding sexual harassment) will require employers of three or more employees to send a copy of this to employees via e-mail within 3 months of hire — so long as the employee has an e-mail address (company-provided or personal). The subject line should be titled “Sexual Harassment Policy” or words very similar to that effect. If the employer doesn’t give employees an e-mail address, the information must be included on its website. If the CHRO develops something on their own, the employer can just provide this link.
The fine for failing to do so will be $750 as well.
CORRECTIVE ACTION IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
When an employer takes prompt remedial action in response to a claim of sexual harassment, the new law requires that the employer can only modify the target’s condition of employment upon agreement in writing from the employee. That means, transferring an employee to a different department can only be done upon written consent.
BUT, even if the employer did not obtain the written consent, the bill still allows the CHRO to find that the employer’s corrective action was reasonable and not “to the detriment” to the complainant, based on the evidence.
TIMEFRAME FOR FILING DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT CLAIMS
Continue Reading
Buried deep in the budget (page 417 of 567) that was passed by the state House last night is this provision:
Sec. 305. (NEW) (Effective from passage) For purposes of this section “covenant not to compete” means any contract or agreement that restricts the right of an individual to provide homemaker, companion or home health