Legislative Developments

Subscribe to Legislative Developments

Yesterday, one of the measures floating around the Connecticut General Assembly regarding Paid Family Medical Leave passed a key committee vote.

The bill still has a ways to go.  Indeed, as first reported by CT News Junkie, even the speaker of the house described it as a “work in progress”.  But now that’s closer to passage, it’s time employers start focusing on some of the key aspects – as framed currently.

The bill (House Bill 5387) would require all private sector employees to contribute 0.5 percent of their paycheck to a fund that they could then use if they needed to take Family Medical Leave. The leave could last up to 12 weeks and the pay would be capped at up to $1,000 per week.

The bill would radically change existing Connecticut FMLA by changing the number of employees required to be eligible for FMLA leave from 75 employees to just two. It would also, however, change the leave calculation period to be on a 12 weeks per 12 months basis, instead of the 16 weeks over 24 months basis that has been a challenge to reconcile with federal FMLA.

The bill would also expand allowable leave under FMLA to caring for grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, all other blood relatives, or those with a “close association … the equivalent of a family member.” This is far in excess of just the relatives covered under current law.

And if you’re wondering, there is no definition as to what would be “equivalent” to a family member.

As to the prospects for the bill, the CBIA has been opposed to it, in part because it’s not applicable to the public sector — and raises costs for both the state and for private employers.  A similar bill in the Senate was rejected by the committee because it would have required the state to commit to $20M in bonding.

But again, employers should be mindful of this bill as the short legislative session begins to wind down in the next few weeks.

 

Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee (by a 25-16 vote) approved of Senate Bill 132, being labelled by it’s proponents as the “Time’s Up” bill but covers both harassment and discrimination cases. I covered an announcement of this a while back.  

As the bill moves closer to consideration now to the state Senate, it’s time for employers to start paying attention to what’s in the bill.  The CBIA has expressed concerns about some aspects of the bill.

Here are a few highlights:

  • To require employers to provide every employee with information concerning the “illegality of sexual harassment and remedies available to victimes of sexual harassment”.
  • To require employers of three or more employees (currently set at 50) to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training and with such training being provided not just to supervisory employees, but all employees.
  • To eliminate affirmative defenses that employers otherwise have that: “(i) the claim of sexual harassment was properly investigated, immediate corrective action was taken and no act of sexual harassment subsequently occurred, (ii) the claim of sexual harassment was not reported to a respondent prior to the filing of a complaint with the commission, (iii) an employer has a policy of prohibiting sexual harassment or recently trained its employees on sexual harassment in accordance with subdivision (15) of section 46a-54, as amended by this act, or (iv) the sexual harassment was not severe or pervasive.”  These defenses would only be allowed to be introduced on the question of damages.
  • To prohibit employers from modifying the “conditions of employment” of the employee making the claim of sexual harassment when the employer takes “immediate corrective action”, unless employee agrees in writing to such a modification.
  • To allow the CHRO to order the promotion of an employee in response to a claim of discrimination.
  • To allow claims of discrimination that occur on or after October 1, 2018 to be subject to a new three-year statute of limitation, instead of the current 180 day requirement.
  • To allow punitive damages for discrimination claims to be awarded in some instances.
  • To allow lawsuits to be brought two years after the CHRO releases jurisdiction over a discrimination, instead of the 90 day requirement.

There’s more as well, so employers are best advised to review it and talk with their attorneys about the impact that this bill might have on their workplace.

From a procedural perspective, the change in the statute of limitations would be significant.

Take this example: Suppose an alleged discriminatory act took place on May 15, 2019.  An employee would then have until (approximately) May 15, 2022 to bring a CHRO charge.  The CHRO could investigate the claim for a while — say a year and release jurisdiction on May 15, 2023.  The employee could then have two additional years to bring suit in Court — taking it out to May 15, 2025.  Add another 18-24 months before a trial date, at best.

Ultimately, this could result in a claim being heard nearly eight years (or more!) after the alleged discrimination took place.

Supervisors may have long since left the company and evidence might not be available anymore for employers to defend themselves.  All told, these types of delays were exactly the type of issue that a shorter statute of limitations was designed to prevent.  Companies would be at a significant disadvantage in defending themselves, all the while damages continue to accrue.

This bill would also require the CHRO to renegotiate significantly large portions of the worksharing agreement in place with the EEOC.

There is certainly momentum for some type of action here; stay tuned to see what further modifications are made to this bill.

Last week, I posted about a proposed Governor’s bill that would expand the training requirements for some employers.

However, that appears to be just a small part of a wider political battle that is about to be raised.

Yesterday, a group of Senate Democrats proposed, according to a handout, the “Largest Overhaul in Modern Connecticut History of Sexual Harassment Laws” that would significantly alter the landscape for nearly all Connecticut employers.

They’ve titled their proposal the “Time’s Up Act: Combating Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault”.  

The bill has yet to be drafted, but the outlines are being shared by Senate Democrats and will be pursued first in the Judiciary Committee (not the Labor & Public Employee Committee as you might expect).

According to their handout, the proposed bill will contain the following relating to discrimination or harassment laws:

  • Require that any notice of sexual harassment remedies and policies by e-mailed to each employee at least once a year, in addition to the required posting.
  • Increase the fines that the CHRO can impose for failing to provide notice (currently at $250)
  • Require sexual harassment training to all employers with three or more employees (instead of the current 50 or more threshold)
  • Require training of all employees, not just supervisory employees with broader topics
  • “Give CHRO the resources it needs to go out into the community and conduct on-site trainings”
  • Increase the statute of limitations from 180 days to 2 years for not just harassment complaints, but all discrimination complaints
  • Eliminate the 90 day deadline after receiving a release from the CHRO to file a lawsuit but extend it to two years after a release from the CHRO.
  • Permit the CHRO to ask for injunctive relief for employers of 3 or more employees, not the current threshold of 50.
  • Allow for punitive damages in all discrimination and harassment complaints
  • Increase funding for the CHRO
  • Create a similar model to California in passing a Private Attorney General Act, which would allow litigants to, after giving notice to the CHRO, bring a claim for violations against himself or herself, but also against other employees as well.
  • Prohibit settlement agreements that prohibit a party from disclosing information regarding sexual harassment or sexual assault.

This is still in the early stages but expect to see a lot more about this in the weeks and months to come.  No doubt, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association will have something to say about this as well.

I’ll have more details as they become available.

The 2018 session of the General Assembly started last week and increasing workplace training is a top priority for passage.

Indeed, it is not surprising that we’re starting to see the first proposed legislation to address the number of harassment claims that have been making headlines the last six months.

Governor’s Bill 5043 sets up the following changes:

  • First, it would increase the number of employers that need to provide anti-harassment training — resetting the number of employees needed to fall under the statute from 50 to 15.
  • Second, the bill would also require all employees (not just supervisors and managers) to undergo two hours of what it calls “awareness and anti-harassment compliance training” and have that training updated every five years.
  • The training that now is just focused on sexual harassment prevention in the workplace, but would also be expanded to include all types of harassment—including that based on race, color, religious creed, age, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, and national origin.
  • The training would also be required to include information about the employer’s policy against harassment, examples of the types of conduct that constitute and do not constitute harassment, strategies to prevent harassment, bystander intervention training and a discussion of “workplace civility” that shall include what is acceptable and expected behavior in the workplace.
  • The bill would require employers of three or more employees to continue to post information regarding all types of harassment and, on an annual basis, to “directly communicate such information and remedies to employees on an annual basis”.

My best guess is that this item of legislation will go through some additional tweaks to satisfy various constituencies, particularly because of the increased costs involved.

For example, expanding the training to all employees would create a massive new industry for training and, as the CBIA has said, a costly mandate as well.

There is more legislation coming down the pike in the employment law area.  This is just one of the items being floated so stay tuned.

In years past, I’ve looked at my crystal ball, I’ve read the tea leaves and I’ve even examined my Magic 8-Ball sitting in my office.  (You never know when you need one.)

I’m out of prediction-making tools.

And indeed, since I started doing this, there are now national lawfirms that are offering up their predictions on employment laws. And everyone is pretty much saying the saying thing nationally:

More focus on sexual harassment claims; more on pay equity;  big changes at the NLRB; more on LGBT employment law protections and still more wage/hour lawsuits.

I’ll make it easy: I agree.

But what’s missing is a look at the local perspective for Connecticut employers. So here are some fearless predictions for 2018 applicable to employers in Connecticut.

  1. It’s (still) the economy, stupid. Where’s the recovery? As it turns out, Connecticut’s economy and budget are both in a bit of a mess. Unemployment has crept back up of late and the General Assembly looks to be coming back to deal with a growing budget deficit. Are we in a recession?There’s no end in sight for this mess for 2018; that said, is the federal tax cut going to trigger some activity?I’m guessing not. I think layoffs and more use of independent contractors may carry the day here. And with that, will we see more lawsuits and more charges of discrimination? Let’s check back in a year.
  2. Count on an interesting Connecticut Supreme Court case or two. Each year, the Connecticut Supreme Court releases an employment law decision or two. Some are important to employers; several others are only notable for employment lawyers.This year, there’s one or two cases pending that may be both.  Keep an eye out for MacDermid Inc. v. Leonetti, which was argued in November 2017.  In that case, an employee signed a separation agreement which included a release of a pending workers’ compensation claim for $70,000 or so.  But the employee pursued the workers compensation claim and the Commission (and the Connecticut Supreme Court) found that the agreement didn’t bar the claim. The employer then sought return of the severance and a jury agreed. Now the employee appeals.  My guess: A close call but comparable federal “tender back” rules suggest employee may not need to return the severance for an invalid release. That said, I’m hedging a bit because the case is complicated with lots of briefing so don’t be surprised if a limited exception for the employer here is found.   (I’ll have more on this case in an upcoming post.)And there’s a decision expected in whether religious institutions have immunity from employment discrimination suits under Connecticut law.  Stay tuned.
  3. Less action from the General Assembly than you might think. It’s an election year for Governor. Moreover, the Senate is evenly split.  And if you following polling, the Democrats in the state seem to have some vulnerability.  All that adds up to a legislature that may be less active than you might think.That said, there’s likely to be a discussion about the use of confidentiality provisions in settlements of sexual harassment claims.  And more attacks on the use of non-compete agreements. But like the pregnancy discrimination law that was passed in 2017, expect a compromise that makes any proposal much more palatable to business interests.

So, there you have it.  Three fearless predictions in Connecticut employment law.

In the meantime, I need another cup of coffee this morning. Best wishes for a happy and healthy 2018.

One of the interesting strains to come out of the new round of publicity surrounding sexual harassment is a renewed focus on mandatory arbitration provisions.

And it comes from an unexpected source: former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson.

Indeed, Carlson recently gave an interview with former ESPN producer and self-titled “Commander-in-She” Valerie Gordon that may have slipped under radar in which she talks about such provisions.

She notes that mandatory or “forced” arbitration provisions enable sexual harassment to exist under the radar.

I’m doing some advocacy work on Capitol Hill, working on gathering bipartisan support to take the secrecy out of arbitration.  You know the forced arbitration in employment contracts makes these things secret.  We have to stop the silence around it.

In another recent interview, Carlson suggested that these arbitration provisions are often “in the fine print” and not focused on when people start a new job.  She’s talked about it during Senate press conferences this year as well.

I’ll be interested in reading more about Carlson’s perspective in her new book being released today.

Carlson’s message should be well taken by employers; if employers are using these arbitration provisions merely as a means to allow a system of harassment to continue, then shame on them.

But here’s the issue: As with most things employment law related, it’s far more nuanced.

There are times when arbitration makes sense for BOTH the employer and employee. Litigation is expensive — very expensive, some of my clients would say — and is filled with uncertainty and time-consuming drama.  I talked more about this in a 2014 post.

Arbitration can be less expensive and can allow both sides to be heard by a neutral third party much more quickly and effectively than a court system.

And yes, it avoids some publicity but again, that can benefit employees too.

By filing in arbitration, rather than court, an employee’s claims won’t be public and won’t seen by future employers as a potential lawsuit waiting to happen.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review this once more in a trio of consolidated cases, including whether employers can force employees to sign away rights to pursue a class actions.

And we shall see if the Connecticut General Assembly revisits the issue in the upcoming session in January 2018.  Until then, employers should continue to monitor developments in this area and figure out if mandatory arbitration provisions are right for your business.

 

Update August 16th: Late yesterday, I received further confirmation that the provisions regarding FMLA were withdrawn entirely from the proposed Democrat-led budget bill. Moreover, the General Assembly early this morning voted on a Republican version of the budget implementer, which now goes on to Governor Malloy (who has indicated he will veto the bill). That version did not contain language on the FMLA changes either. So for now, employers can stand down. However, employers should continue to track the changes both this year and next. FMLA changes may make a return at some point.   

Update at 2:06 p.m.: Since publishing this article, I’ve now heard from three people who work at or with the legislature that while they can’t find fault with my analysis of the proposed legislation as described below, the section on FMLA was intended to address a separate issue.   As a result, it appears that the section on CTFMLA changes discussed below may be withdrawn this afternoon.

What the motives were for this language are far beyond the scope of this blog; this blog has always tried to provide an apolitical analysis of the law and legislation.  For employers, just take note that the budget implementer bill language on FMLA is now likely to be withdrawn when the final bill is considered. 

Late this morning, the proposed bill implementing the state’s budget (a so-called “budget implementer”) was finally released. And like years past, the bill contains some nuggets that are seemingly unrelated to a budget.

As the proposal is a monstrous 925 pages (download here), I’m still reviewing it but employers in Connecticut need to be aware immediately about some proposed changes to the state’s FMLA provisions.  First, a caveat: This is still very much a work in progress so employers should keep a close eye and contact their legislators if interested.

  • First, the bill would expand the scope of relationships covered to include siblings and grandparents/grandkids.  Thus, if you needed to take time off to care for a grandparent, that would now be a covered leave.
  • Second, the bill would revise the definition of employer to now include the state, municipalities, public schools and private schools which means the CTFMLA would now apply to all of them.
  • But then things get even a bit more confusing. The bill changes the definition of “eligible employee” presumably to exclude state workers who are subject to collective bargaining. BUT the bill’s language is far more imprecise and would seemingly exclude ALL workers who are subject to collective bargaining (whether private or public).  Specifically, the definition of “eligible employee” would now mean an employee “who is exempt from collective bargaining…” It does not have the qualifier that perhaps the drafters intended, though, given the speed in which this has been prepared, readers take caution.
  • Next. and quite significantly, the bill would seemingly extend the leave parents get upon the birth of a child or for placement of a child for adoption of foster care.  Specifically, it indicates (line 8472!) that:

Leave under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section may be extended up to sixteen workweeks beyond the expiration of such leave due under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section.

  • Thus, Connecticut employers would seemingly need to provide up to 32 weeks (16 + 16 more) of unpaid leave for new parents.
  • But the bill goes beyond that too — for leaves for birth, adoption placement, care of a family member or self or to serve as a organ or bone marrow donor, the bill expands the leave too.  Specifically, in line 8529:

An eligible employee may extend his or her personal leave provided under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D) or (E) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) for up to twenty-four workweeks after the expiration of any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave with proper medical certification.

  • In addition, the bill goes on to add in line 8534, that for leaves for serious health conditions of self or family member, or for donor leaves:

The use of sick leave by an eligible employee for leave provided under subparagraph (C), (D) or (E) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed an incident or occurrence under an absence control policy.

The changes are coming fast and furious and it is possible that this proposed bill won’t get passed in its current form.  It’s certainly far beyond the paid FMLA program that was originally under discussion by the legislature.  These changes would be effective in two weeks — October 1, 2017 — which doesn’t given employers almost any time to revise their policies or train their employees.

And I must confess that I’m still a bit surprised by the breadth of this and scratch my head as to whether this language was intended to mean what it appears to say.  I’d like to see a the office of legislative research recap this bill too.

In the meantime, I’m still reviewing the remainder of the bill for other changes relevant to private employers.  (It’s 925 pages and 26452 lines long so bear with me.)  Have you spotted anything else? Add it in the comments below.

My law partner, Gabe Jiran, talks today about whether it’s all that easy to change the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.  Is it just as easy as a vote? Or does it require something more? The answer has implications for all employers.  

With all of the talk about the financial difficulties faced by the government, I, and others in here, sometimes get the question of whether the State of Connecticut or other states might try to change the laws on collective bargaining or try to pass legislation to alter the terms of its existing collective bargaining agreements.

Other states have started down this road, but it is not that easy.

Recently, the Connecticut Attorney General was asked to opine on whether the General Assembly could statutorily change the contracts covering State employees to address the fiscal crisis.  A link to the opinion is here.

The short answer is that the State could do so, such as by passing a statute that wage increases be delayed or eliminated in State contracts.

However, the United States Constitution imposes a pretty heavy burden on the State to justify any such changes.

The relevant factors are:

  1. the severity of the fiscal crisis;
  2. the nature and duration of the contractual changes;
  3. the extent that the State has attempted to implement other alternatives in the past;
  4. the extent to which the State has studied and made findings about the feasibility of other alternatives;
  5. whether these alternatives would be a less dramatic option;
  6. the extent to which the fiscal crisis existed or was foreseeable when the State entered into the existing contract; and
  7. the State’s representations during negotiations for the existing contract.

Based on cases utilizing some or all of these factors, the State would face an uphill battle if it wanted to change an existing contract.

For example, a federal appeals court struck down the State of New York’s plan to delay wage increases for employees because New York had alternatives such as raising taxes or shifting money around in its budget.  In another New York case, the same court found that a $1 billion deficit was not a dire enough fiscal crisis to justify a delayed wage increase.

However, one case found that the City of Buffalo was able to impose a wage freeze when it was undeniable that Buffalo was in a fiscal emergency and that the wage freeze was a last resort after looking at other options.

In discussing the matters with others here, we expect that Connecticut and other states will continue to look for creative options to address their financial situations with employees.

However, it is doubtful that these options will involve changes to existing contracts without negotiation with the unions involved.  In addition, any State attempts to change contracts in the private sector would be almost certain to fail.

file101235857424For the last six years, you haven’t seen much on this blog about changes to federal employment laws because, well, there just weren’t any.  What we DID see, however, were changes to regulations and enforcement orders.

Nearly six months into the new Trump administration, we’re now starting to see significant shifts in the federal regulatory scheme too.

A lot of national employment law blogs have been starting to recap them so I’m not going to go too in depth here. Among the changes? A death-knell to the persuader rule, and, earlier this month, a pullback of guidance on joint employment and independent contractor rules.   And it looks like the overtime rule changes are still in limbo as well, with the DOL “rethinking” such rules in news articles this week.

You don’t need to have a law degree to understand that these changes will favor companies.

Last night too, the Trump administration named the final member of a new National Labor Relations Board who will, no doubt, start rolling back other labor law decisions that have favored employees and labor unions as well.

But what will the impact be in Connecticut?

It’s still a bit early to tell, but I think the impact may be muted in some ways. After all, we have a CONNECTICUT Department of Labor that still marches to its own drum.  For example, it has taken a pretty aggressive view on who is (or is not) an employee vs. an independent contractor.

Indeed, as I’ve discussed before, the Obama-era rule changes might have, in fact, helped level the playing field for some Connecticut employers who have felt that they have had to comply with stricter Connecticut rules which made them less competitive nationwide.  With the rollback of some of these rules at the federal level, Connecticut’s higher standards may come back into play more often.

That may be overstating it a bit, but Connecticut employers will have to play catchup to figure out the patchwork of federal and state regulations and the interplay between them.

Perhaps it is more fair to say that things are still shaking out this year for Connecticut employers.  The General Assembly session that just ended was more quiet than most.  But at a national level, employers shouldn’t be too quick to make too many changes because there seems to be many more aspects in flux than in years past.

The only thing I’ll predict for the next six months is that we have all the ingredients in place for a wild roller coaster ride with more changes than we’ve seen in some time.

So buckle up.   Things are just getting interesting.

capitoldas2Well, the Connecticut General Assembly ended earlier this week and, as predicted, it ended with a whimper and not a bang.  Many employment law proposals failed to receive votes, including those on minimum wage and Paid FMLA, leaving many employers (and the CBIA) breathing a bit of a sigh of relief.

I’ve previously recapped most of the bills here and here, so I’m only going to recap the session here in the interests of time.

  • The Governor is expected to sign a bill expanding the requirements for employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees. Again, I’ve recapped the measure here but this is probably the most significant bill to come out of the session regarding employers.
  • There will be no minimum wage hike and the introduction of Paid FMLA failed to get enough votes this term.  There is little doubt that the split in the Senate along party lines slowed momentum down for what was going to be the Democrat party’s signature achievement this session.
  • Also not getting votes this session was a bill that would have prohibited many employers from running credit checks on prospective employees and a bill that would required employers to give advance notice to employees about their work shifts.
  • Another bill that would change whistleblower protections in Connecticut also failed to clear the House.

Some of the other technical changes, to workers compensation or unemployment compensation, offer up a mixed bag. I’ve covered them in a prior post.

A special session is still on the way and it’s possible that some measures will get plopped into an “implementer” bill for the budget like it did a few years ago.  But my gut tells me that the budget is unlike to be used this way given the significant financial issues in play.  Nonetheless, employers should continue to watch for any developments in this area until the special session is closed.