As I continue to highlight some important employment law developments from this summer, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) caused a mild stir for employment law lawyers when it issued a decision in Stericycle, Inc.
This ruling introduces a fresh legal standard for assessing employers’ workplace policies and rules, with far-reaching implications for businesses
In prior posts, I’ve talked about the difficulty for employers in getting a motion for summary judgment granted in state court in discrimination cases.
(Motions for summary judgment are procedural tools that can be used when there are no disputed issues of material fact and therefore the court can decide the case on law
In a case that will be officially released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the damages award for former employee in a wrongful termination lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to reasonably estimate his lost wages.
The court found that the plaintiff’s testimonial evidence, backed by proven facts, satisfied the reasonable certainty
Over at our sister blog, Employment Law Letter, my colleague Sarah Niemiroski and I have a recap of the important new Supreme Court case. No, not the affirmative action one (we’ll get to that in another post) but the one on religious accommodation, Groff v. DeJoy.
The gist of the decision is that employers
The Connecticut Appellate Court, in a decision officially released next week, ruled that limousine drivers (“chauffeurs” if you must) are not entitled to be paid during their meal breaks.
If the case, Belgada v. Hy’s Livery Service, Inc. sounds familiar, that’s because I covered the lower court’s decision rejecting the drivers’ claims back in
In a 3-2 decision officially released today, the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on a little-used statute to expand the narrow wrongful discharge claim available to employees who believe they have been fired in violation of an important public policy.
The case is one that only an employment lawyer could love as it turns on definitions
Last week, the NLRB issued a landmark decision in McLaren Macomb that is already shaking up how private employers (both unionized and non-unionized) should consider severance agreements.
My colleagues have the full recap of the decision over at our sister blog, Employment Law Letter, from Friday and I highly recommend reading that first.
The key
Earlier this week, my colleague Bradley Harper and I did a post our sister blog site, Employment Law Letter, on a recent Connecticut Appellate Court case discussing the level of proof needed by an employee to win a discrimination case.
If you haven’t read it yet, you can click here.
The key line in the
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
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