It’s been a while since I talked about federal employment law legislation — in part because nothing ever seems to pass Congress nowadays. It wasn’t that long ago, that Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act (10+ years). But it feels like a lot longer than that.
So enter Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. Last Friday,
A hearing is set for Thursday on draft legislation to “fix” a bill that had been earlier vetoed and that I discussed in a post earlier this week. CTNewsJunkie.com was first to report on the details earlier Wednesday.
The bill comes at an interesting crossroads in restaurant wage/hour law. Earlier this week, the U.S.
Has it really been a dozen years? Yes, it was 12 years ago today that I clicked “Publish” and put up my Welcome message to the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.
At the time, I was the first platform to discuss employment law issues with a focus on Connecticut. Now, it seems like every lawfirm
A bill that would have brought the state’s tipping regulations in line with federal regulations was not brought up for a veto override vote earlier this week. I previously covered the subject in prior posts here and here.
According to a report in CT Mirror, a “deal” is now being sought that would allow
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That bill would have rescinded a particular labor regulation and required the Department of Labor to promulgate a new regulation in its place.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,
As the dust continues to settle from the General Assembly, bills that didn’t get a lot of press beforehand are continuing to come into the light.
One of them is new Public Act 19-95, which was just signed by Governor Lamont yesterday.
The bill treats being a member of the “Civil Air Patrol”
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