As I’ve been going over this week, employers have a lot of new obligations under Connecticut law.
This next one is pretty arcane. (In fact it was on line 12415 of page 408 of the budget implementer bill).
Here’s the new rule:
Effective December 1, 2021 (and annually through December 1, 2024), any
Yesterday I talked about a new law that will impact the hiring process. But there’s another new law that employers need to comply with starting October 1, 2021. This one, though, is simpler than some of the others. If you want to look at the law itself, it’s Public Act 21-69.
The law amends existing
As the Delta variant continues make its presence known, more employers are continuing to explore mandatory vaccination policies for their staff. This comes on the heels of Governor Lamont’s executive order that requires teachers and others to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing.
My colleagues and I have been fielding questions on
One of my favorite finds during the pandemic has been Ted Lasso – the Apple TV breakout hit. If you haven’t seen it, it’s about an American football coach who gets hired for an English Premier League soccer (or the “other football”) team.
At least that’s what it’s ostensibly about.
But not really.
Because
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 The Definitive Employer Guide to Connecticut’s New Anti-Sexual Harassment Law
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
It seems likely that some type of paid Family and Medical Leave (otherwise known as “Paid FMLA”) bill is going to pass the General Assembly.
But the “paid” aspect of the
In my prior post, I wondered aloud whether there were some rough waters ahead for employers. Apple recently announced that it would not meet it’s earnings estimates in the first quarter of 2019, in part because of soft demand from China. Other companies are expected to announce some similar issues.
Honestly, I’ve had enough conversations
Like a lot of people, I’ve got the summer bug and, given the choice between a walk outside and a blog post — well, you can figure out what has been winning.
But I’ve got a few posts lined back up the next few weeks. In the interim, I want to share with you one
Over the weekend, the General Assembly approved a bill prohibiting employers, including the state and its political subdivisions, from asking, or directing a third-party to ask, about a prospective employee’s wage and salary history.
I have previously discussed the measure here. There were a few versions floating around and it was House Bill 5386 that