At our Shipman & Goodwin Labor & Employment Law seminar last week, one of the hot topics that got attendees talking was about minimum wage & overtime rules — both of which are in the midst of change.

But my fellow partners brought up another law in that discussion that shouldn’t be overlooked.  And that provides a nice entry way into this week’s Employment Law Checklist Project #emplawchecklist.

The law is set forth at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40z. The key prohibitions are set forth in subsection (b) as follows:

No employer shall:

(1) Prohibit an employee from disclosing or discussing the amount of his or her wages or the wages of another employee of such employer that have been disclosed voluntarily by such other employee;

(2) Prohibit an employee from inquiring about the wages of another employee of such employer;

(3) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that denies the employee his or her right to disclose or discuss the amount of his or her wages or the wages of another employee of such employer that have been disclosed voluntarily by such other employee;

(4) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that denies the employee his or her right to inquire about the wages of another employee of such employer;

(5) Inquire or direct a third party to inquire about a prospective employee’s wage and salary history unless a prospective employee has voluntarily disclosed such information, except that this subdivision shall not apply to any actions taken by an employer, employment agency or employee or agent thereof pursuant to any federal or state law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of salary history for employment purposes. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from inquiring about other elements of a prospective employee’s compensation structure, as long as such employer does not inquire about the value of the elements of such compensation structure;

(6) Discharge, discipline, discriminate against, retaliate against or otherwise penalize any employee who discloses or discusses the amount of his or her wages or the wages of another employee of such employer that have been disclosed voluntarily by such other employee; or

(7) Discharge, discipline, discriminate against, retaliate against or otherwise penalize any employee who inquires about the wages of another employee of such employer.

That’s a lot of “don’ts” in one law. So let’s dig deeper into each of them to add to our checklist.

Scope:  Employers are defined here as “any individual, corporation, limited liability company, firm, partnership, voluntary association, joint stock association, the state and any political subdivision thereof and any public corporation within the state using the services of one or more employees for pay”.  In other words, among the broadest definitions of employers. And it includes the state.

What’s Prohibited or Required? A lot.  The law says that employers can’t prohibit employees from disclosing their own salary or asking co-workers about theirs.  Employers can’t require employees to waive their rights to do those things.  And employers can’t take an adverse employment action against employees who do those things.  It also prohibits employers from asking job applicants about the applicants wage & salary history (unless it’s voluntarily disclosed by the applicant or an exception applies.)

Private Right of Action or Other Penalty Allowed? Yes! An employee has two years to bring a private right of action.

What May Be Recovered? Employees may recover compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, punitive damages and “such legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.”  In other words,  potentially a lot.

Any Practical Steps Employers Can Take? Yes.  Update your employee handbook to address this law. Tell supervisors and hiring managers about these restrictions.  And if you see employees discussing their salary on social media, resist the urge to fire the employee — you may just get a lawsuit as a result.

Any Other Interesting Information or Background? This law is really the result of two different bills that I’ve talked about many times before when they were under consideration.  But seeing them in the statutes shows their breadth and scope. And don’t forget about the NLRA restrictions on “protected concerted activity.”

And really, so “Everybody’s Talkin'”? Take a breath and listen to this great song by Tedeschi Trucks Band.

This is one of those laws that has sneaky exposure for businesses. Creating a private right of action — with attorneys fees and punitive damages — means that at some point, attorneys representing individuals are going to find some cases to make an example of.  Don’t be that employer.

Train your staff on this law and ensure your compliance with it.

On Friday, I presented a program on “Paid FMLA: Does It Leave You Confused?” at my firm’s semi-annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar, along with my Shipman & Goodwin colleague Chris Neary.

Suffice to say that while the pun was well received, we had a number of attendees who left the seminar understanding that the breadth and scope of the state’s new Paid FMLA law may be far greater than they previously understood.

Even now, the new Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Authority — a new quasi-public state agency — is still getting up and running.  One of my former colleagues, Henry Zaccardi, recently retired from Shipman & Goodwin and will be serving on the board.

Of course, there’s still plenty of time to adjust to Paid FMLA. Payroll withholdings won’t start until 2021 and the employer requirements to offer such leave don’t start until 2022.

But that still leaves employers with lots of questions to ask.

Among them:

  • Should we consider outsourcing our FMLA decisions to a third-party provider, like The Hartford? 
  • Should we even consider over-staffing to deal with the likely increase in employees seeking leave?
  • What policy and procedure changes should we be considering now?
  • How will we train our staff to understand the implications of the new law?
  • Who is going to be tasked with keeping up with the regulations and guidance that is likely to be coming from the new PFML agency?

This only scratches the surface.  A new website is being established by the authority that should answer some questions but it’s going to be a long road ahead for most employers.

 

How many days in a row can an employee work? That’s the question we’ll tackle in this installment of the Employment Law Checklist Project. #emplawchecklist

It’s actually a question I first asked right before Yom Kippur twelve years ago so it seems appropriate to revisit this today with the holiday this week.

The short answer is actually 12 — even though the law seems to suggest 6. And even 12 may not be the right answer. Details below.

The state law on the subject can be found in a section that looks to be unrelated to all the employment laws we’ve been covering: Conn. Gen. Stat. 53-303e. 

Wait, isn’t that in the criminal code? 

Why yes it is. It’s in the section that relates to the state’s blue laws — some of which were overturned many years ago.  But this particular law was revised in 2013 to update it to comply with a court ruling on the subject.

What’s it say? Well the key provision is as follows:

(a) No employer shall compel any employee engaged in any commercial occupation or in the work of any industrial process to work more than six days in any calendar week. An employee’s refusal to work more than six days in any calendar week shall not constitute grounds for his dismissal.

Scope: Seems to be all employers.  Employees engaged in any “commercial occupation” or in the “work of any industrial process” are protected, though good luck finding any cases truly delving into this.

What’s Prohibited or Required? An employer can’t “compel” or force an employee to work more than six days in a row in any calendar week.  And an employer can’t fire an employee who refuses to work on the seventh day.  BUT, asking an employee to work or the employee’s voluntary acceptance of such work is permissible.

So, how did I say 12 days in a row before?  Because the restriction only applies during a calendar week; as the CBIA noted, once a new calendar week starts, the clock resets. So technically you could have an employee work Monday to Saturday one week, and Sunday to Friday the next.

And as noted, an employee can work all seven days — as long as it is not compelled by the employer.

Private Right of Action or Other Penalty Allowed? No private right of action appears allowed by the employee can make a complaint to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration.

As for penalties, if the  SBMA finds a violation, it can order “whatever remedy will make the employee whole”.  Also, section (c) indicates that any person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $200.  Note that this appears to be a conflict with Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 53-303c which indicates that the penalty for a violations ahll not be more than $100 for the first offense or $500 for subsequent offenses.

Any Practical Steps Employers Can Take? Ask, don’t demand, that employees who want to work all seven days in a week will be permitted to do so; just make sure it’s voluntary.  Of course, for some employees, they may get substantial overtime for the work so there may be a cost too.

Any Other Interesting Information or Background? When employers look up employment laws, they need to realize that not all laws are group together. Some of the laws are in far-ranging places that you wouldn’t first look at.  Here, the criminal laws are implicated.  If you want to see what other statutes are “nearby”, you should know that the state prohibits certain “bucket shops”. 

Yeah, I needed to look that up too.

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 weekCTNewsJunkie.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. Department of Labor released proposed guidance that would give restaurants far greater latitude in deciding on tip pools and the application of the tip credit.

Indeed, the proposed federal regulation would permit a tip credit to be taken regardless of the percentage of servers’ time that’s spent on so-called “non-service” duties, provided this side work is done during, just before, or a reasonable time after regular “service” time.

The proposed Connecticut bill can be found here and would require the CTDOL to write regulations that employers can then, in good faith, rely upon. The bill would also try to limit some class actions that have been brought as well.  It’s somewhat consistent with the proposal being floated about last week that I posted on on Tuesday.

The two key provisions of the new bill are as follows:

  • Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection, if any employee is paid by his or her employer less than the minimum fair wage or overtime wage to which he or she is entitled under section 31-62-E4 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies, such employee shall recover, in a civil action, (A) twice the full amount of such minimum wage or overtime wage less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, with costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court, or (B) if the employer establishes that the employer had a good faith belief that the underpayment of such wages was in compliance with the law, the full amount of such minimum wage or overtime wage less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, with costs as may be allowed by the court. A good faith belief includes, but is not limited to, reasonable reliance on written guidance from the Labor Department.
  • Notwithstanding section 52-105 of the general statutes, no person may be authorized by a court to sue for the benefit of other alleged similarly situated persons in a case brought for violations of section 31-62-E4 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies, unless such person, in addition to satisfying any judicial rules of practice governing class action certifications, demonstrates to the court, under the appropriate burden of proof, that the defendant is liable to all individual proposed class members because all such members (A) performed nonservice duties while employed by the defendant, for more than a de minimis amount of time, that were not incidental to service duties, and (B) were not properly compensated by the defendant for some portion of their nonservice duties in accordance with section 31-62-E4 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies.

The bill would make these effective from passage and likely give restaurants some protection with the existing class-action litigation that has been plaguing these places.  The hearing is set for 10 a.m. at the legislature.

So a few months ago, I got a call from a CTDOL employee asking if I knew about a certain bill that had passed the legislature. I was still reviewing the bills but decided to take a deeper look.

As it turned out, a deal had been struck to insert language in the last few hours into an otherwise procedural bill that gave restaurants some needed protection from very costly wage & hour lawsuits that have been filed.  And I posted about it.

I reached out to a few people before clicking publish but was told to go ahead — nothing to worry about or “see”.

Except, of course, there was plenty to see because this was a bill that no one was supposed to see before it was signed by the Governor.

Eeek.

I later discovered that the Governor’s office had not been involved in the deal and my blog post was news to the them.  I even got a call from another attorney representing a restaurant who wanted me to take my blog post down. (Which is, of course, kinda crazy since it was about a bill that had already PASSED the General Assembly. Unanimously.  Even if only a select few knew what was actually in it.)

The rest, as it is often said, is history. The Governor vetoed the bill. The legislature didn’t have the votes to override but pledged to work out things in a special session.  That hasn’t happened yet.

The Governor recently outlined a new proposal being floated as a “middle ground” but it seems that all the stakeholders have yet to agree. [Though, just after publishing this, a hearing on a draft bill is set for Thursday, October 10, 2019.]

The parameters of one possible deal is this: Eliminate the double damages employees can recover if an employer can show that it acted in good faith, but allow employees to recover attorneys’ fees.

Having had an apparent hand in creating this mess, let me suggest that legislators take a page from the practical approach by the Connecticut Department of Labor.

Employers that are investigated by the Connecticut Department of Labor are often subject to punishment that is far less severe than if they are sued by an employee.  If investigated, the CTDOL will often resolve matters by allowing employers to pay backpay plus, perhaps, some interest and modest penalties. But double damages and attorneys’ fees are not sought in most cases. (If the CTDOL has to go to court, though, watch out.)

So, how about this for a modest proposal: Give employers, who have relied on the CTDOL advice in the past, a better opportunity to make things right.

How? Offer a limited amnesty program.

This isn’t actually as crazy as it might initially sound.  There’s even precedent for this – the federal DOL rolled out an amnesty program for misclassification of workers in 2018 to mixed success; it didn’t work entirely because a federal disclosure could still subject the employer to state law violations.  A Connecticut amnesty program wouldn’t have the same issue because federal law seems to permit what restaurants are otherwise doing.

What might a state amnesty look like? Give employers one year to self-disclose to the CTDOL any failure to pay employees minimum wage for non-service work as a good faith defense.  The CTDOL will have to accept the disclosure but once it does so, the employer could be forced to pay full back pay, plus — perhaps — interest and a modest penalty to get some form of amnesty, but this would mirror what the CTDOL does now for its investigations.

In exchange, the employer could not be sued by an employee just to recover attorneys’ fees and no double damages too.

This might not solve the issue of what to do with pending lawsuits, but at least it would give other restaurants an opportunity to get into compliance without a worry that an expensive lawsuit would follow.

And employees would obviously benefit too.

Despite the headaches that have developed from this whole process, hopefully all sides will see this for what it should be — an opportunity for a larger deal that helps restaurants and ensures the laws are used as a shield to protect employees, not a sword to punish employers.

Just wrapped up a trial so hoping to get these blog posts with a little more frequency.

On October 1, 2019, the new training requirements on sexual harassment prevention became effective. I’ve recapped them before here in my “Definitive Employer Guide to Connecticut’s New Anti-Sexual Harassment Law” post from June.

I noted then that all employers with three or more employees must train all of their employees by October 1, 2020 (or within six months of hire, after that time).

How is an employer going to do that at a minimal cost? Well, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) was required to develop a free, online training course for employers.

That training is now live and is, in fact, free! You can access it here. I’ve taken a brief look through it and it’s set up with several different YouTube videos and some written materials as well.  While there is no substitute for in-person, classroom-style training, the CHRO version will likely be “good enough” for many many employers.

In the interim, if you want more information, my firm is putting on a half-day seminar this Friday.  One of our sessions is dedicated to addressing recent legal developments on sexual harassment in the workplace, including:

  • Reviewing all of the changes made by the Act
  • Evaluating whether an online program would be as effective as an in-person training for your workforce
  • Discussing strategies for maintaining a workplace free from harassment
  • Addressing recent court cases involving sexual harassment in the workplace

If you want more information, you can find the registration page here. (NOTE: Due to overwhelming demand, registration is now closed.)

 

Can an employer ever win a motion for summary judgment on a discrimination case in state court?

The prevailing wisdom is no.  A fool’s errand, some might say.

But a new Connecticut Appellate Court case (Alvarez v. City of Middletown) shows at least what’s possible.

The case has some details that stand out. The Plaintiff was a probationary police officer who was seeking a more permanent position. In the course of his employment, he had performance deficiencies that were noted. In February 2015, an individual made a complaint that the Plaintiff groped her and made her feel his genitals through his pants while he was responding to a reported domestic incident at her home.

While the investigation was ongoing, the Plaintiff’s performance still showed deficiencies including a failure to file written reports.  He was sent a letter that he would face a probationary discharge but he resigned before that happened.

The Plaintiff then sued on race and national origin.  Perhaps surprisingly, the employer filed for — and won — summary judgment. On appeal, the Plaintiff said that there were material issues of fact.  The Appellate Court disagreed.

First, the plaintiff argued that he was ‘‘not alone in his performance issues’’ and that the defendant ‘‘did not discipline other officers for the same issues.’’  But as the Appellate court noted, there was no evidence provided to substantiate that assertion. The court said that was needed.

Second, the plaintiff said that during his job interview, he was asked ‘‘if I had any side bitches or side girls or baby mama drama in Waterbury that he had to concern himself with because he didn’t want that type of issues in the police department.’’  The Appellate Court said that while it might be “tasteless” it didn’t have anything to do with his race or national origin.

Moreover, the court found that the “same actor” inference was appropriate because the person who asked the question, was the same person who hired him and was the same was who fired him.  ‘‘The premise underlying this inference is that if the person who fires an employee is the same person that hired him, one cannot logically impute to that person an invidious intent to discriminate against the employee.’’  Given the inference here, the court said summary judgment was appropriate.

While this isn’t the first Appellate Court to adopt the same actor inference, the use of the inference here should — if the lower court listens carefully — send a message that summary judgment is a viable mechanism for courts handling such cases.

But, to be a bit cynical, one case isn’t going to change prevailing wisdom. Or the courts.

And so, employers might be better served by viewing this case as an outlier — a nice exception to show that summary judgment might still be possible.

Rarely.

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 has taken its newsletters and slapped a “blog” label on it and voila! Lots of employment law blogs.

What’s interesting about having a blog for so long though is that you really do start to build up a perspective that’s hard to see on the day-to-day frontlines.  My earlier posts had no mention of the impact that social media was having in the workplace because, well, it wasn’t having any.   Twitter had just launched the year before and no one was using smartphones to access the internet either.

And data privacy? Fight for $15? Paid FMLA? All concepts really in the 2010s.

It is pretty remarkable how much has shifted over time.  Heck, we’ve even had the ADA Amendments Act – which closed a big battle as to whether an individual had a disability or not.

Employment law blogs have also shifted over time. With so many outlets for distributing employment law information, most blogs now repeat the same information — creating more noise for clients to sort through. I’d argue that “old-school” blogs like this still have their relevance in breaking through that monotony.

So what’s next? It seems that data analytics and artificial intelligence are a new horizon in employment law.  Algorithms will be written suggesting which job candidates might be the best “fit” for your workplace. (Incidentally, I have a presentation on artificial intelligence in the workplace coming up in the next few weeks — details soon!).

Or employers will be able to continue to track the productivity of their employees at such a granular detail, that employers will have to decide how much “Big Brother” they really want to push.  Already, you have employers implanting microchips in employees.  What’s next?

The other big battle that seems to be brewing is over the “Gig” economy. Just this week, California is trying to convert independent contractors to employees by new legislation (and you have Uber pushing back).  This battle will come to the Connecticut statehouse at some point.

What’s that Ferris Bueller quote?

Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

In any event, this is my yearly post to just say “thanks”.  It’s been a long journey and we’re not quite done just yet….

 

What makes an employee file a lawsuit? Or what makes an employee give an employer the benefit of the doubt?

I think about this question sometimes in the middle of lawsuits. I try to figure out what went wrong in the relationship between the employer and the employee.

After all, at some point, both thought that they were in for a long relationship together. Both had big hopes and dreams.

Somewhere the relationship went off track.

The answers as to what that happens are normally complicated; it’s typically a variety of things, sometimes small, that when taken together lead to a falling out.

I’m struck by those little details that people remember years later. The forgotten “thank you”.  Or the employer that remembers that the employee left early on a March Madness weekend before a big deal was supposed to close.

On the flip side, though, some employers escape such a fate often times by doing the little things that people remember in an employee’s (or employer’s) time of need.

An incident on September 11, 2001 highlights that for me and it’s a story I tell often.

On that date, I was on an early morning flight to Miami to cover a mediation the next day.  We landed safely and by late that morning, it was pretty apparent that the mediation was not happening and there would be no return flight home.

But I had already rented a car with Hertz for our mediation in Miami.  And my colleague and I began to think — what if we just drove back to Connecticut?

We tried calling Hertz at that point, but the number was busy.  And so we did what a lot of people did on that day – we just started driving.   And driving.

After stopping for a few hours sleep outside Beaufort, South Carolina that night, we finally made it back late the next day to Connecticut.

What exorbitant rate would Hertz charge? We didn’t really care, but when we pulled in, we figured that taking a Florida car for a one-way spin to Connecticut might set us back several hundreds of dollars.

Imagine, then, my surprise when I learned that Hertz was waiving all one-way fees. We were simply charged the daily rate we had contracted for.

The staff couldn’t have been more understanding and I’ve always remembered that gesture in staying as a loyal customer to Hertz for the following two decades.

I think about that gesture a lot and think about the dividends it paid in the future.

It’s the difference between doing what is “legal” or authorized, versus following the proverbial Golden Rule.

When employers ask lawyers for advice, we are pretty good at telling them what is “legal” or “authorized”.  But that shouldn’t end the discussion.  It’s also looking at the bigger picture.  Will some small gesture pay dividends down the road?

There is no right answer.

But understand that the saying from Mother Teresa has some power — “Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies.”

Yesterday, a group of workers at some of the travel plazas in Connecticut, along with members of Local 32BJ of SEIU, rallied to protest “wage theft” and call for unionization of the employees who work there, including fast-food workers.

The issues the group is raising — at least that have been reported by the press —  are two-fold: That the state’s “prevailing wage” law applies to them and, under that law, they ought to be paid the “fringe rate” attached to it.

This post will not answer those questions, which are best left to a court — or a client wanting to pay attorneys’ fees for a full legal analysis.

But this rally provides the perfect opportunity to recap the prevailing wage rule in the next installment of the Employment Law Checklist Project #emplawchecklist.

The state’s prevailing wage law can be found at Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 31-53 and 31-53a.  There are bunch of provisions (far too numerous) but the key language is as follows in section (a):

Each contract for the construction, remodeling, refinishing, refurbishing, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of any public works project by the state or agents…shall contain the following provision: “The wages paid on an hourly basis to any person performing the work of any mechanic, laborer or worker on the work herein contracted to be done and the amount of payment or contribution paid or payable on behalf of each such person to any employee welfare fund … shall be at a rate equal to the rate customary or prevailing for the same work in the same trade or occupation in the town in which such public works project is being constructed. Any contractor who is not obligated by agreement to make payment or contribution on behalf of such persons to any such employee welfare fund shall pay to each mechanic, laborer or worker as part of such person’s wages the amount of payment or contribution for such person’s classification on each pay day.”

Scope: As noted by the Connecticut Department of Labor on its helpful website “The law applies to each contract for the construction, remodeling, refinishing, refurbishing, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of any public works project by the State or its agents, or by any political subdivision of the State.”

Anything else? Yes, there are cash thresholds to be met too.  It does not apply where the total cost of all work to be performed by all contractors and subcontractors in connection with new construction of a public works project is under $1M and it does not apply in connection with remodeling, refinishing, refurbishing, rehabilitation, alteration or repair of any public works project under $100k.  It should be noted that sometimes, the parties to a contract can also indicate that compliance with prevailing wage law is a key component of the contract that might otherwise not fall within the scope of the law. Is that what will be argued for the travel plazas? That remains to be seen.

What’s Prohibited or Required?  A bunch of things, including payment requirements, certification requirements, record-keeping requirements, and more. But at its core, if the contract is covered, workers must be paid a base rate in accordance with what the DOL has established in that particular town for that particular work.  And workers also need to be given a fringe benefit rate which may be paid in cash or benefits.

For example, let’s say a company has a contract to build a $10M publicly-financed office building in New Fairfield.  Jackhammer operators on that project would be entitled to a prevailing wage of $31.25/hour plus a fringe benefit rate of $20.84 according to the 2019 prevailing wage chart issued by the CTDOL.

Private Right of Action or Other Penalty Allowed? There are various civil, criminal and administrative penalties for violations of the prevailing wage law.  Again, the CTDOL has a good summary: “Failure to pay the prevailing rate is a crime which may be a felony depending upon the amount of unpaid wages.  Knowingly filing a false certified payroll or failure to file a certified payroll is a Class D felony for which an employer may be fined up to five thousand dollars, imprisoned for up to five years, or both.  Disregarding obligations under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-53 may result in an administrative debarment which may preclude any firm, corporation, partnership or association in which such person or firms have an interest from receiving an award of a contract until a period of up to three years have elapsed.  Additionally, civil penalties of $300 per violation of law may also be assessed upon the employer.”

Any Practical Steps Employers Can Take? If your work involves the state of Connecticut and you are anywhere close to doing construction or rehab or the like, be sure to consult with legal counsel; prevailing wage laws are notoriously challenging to comply with and add a level of complexity unlike anything else in employment law.  And don’t forget there is a federal counterpart to this — the Davis-Bacon Act.

Any Other Interesting Information or Background? Prevailing wage laws get changed a bunch to meet various circumstances. How so? Look at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-53(h)(2).  It says that the prevailing wage law does not apply to work on a public works project “funded in whole or in part by any private bequest that is greater than nine million dollars but less than twelve million dollars for a municipality in New Haven County with a population of not less than twelve thousand and not more than thirteen thousand…”

Huh? This came about during the special session of the legislature in 2017 and was buried in Section 567.  If you’re curious, only Oxford or Derby have between 12-13k in population.  If anyone knows exactly what this particular project is, let me know.

But for employers, it’s always worth reading the fine print.