Today, the EEOC has published its final rule clarifying a portion of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  You can download the rule here and a FAQ from the EEOC here.   The rule comes as a partial response to a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that analyzed the issue. 

The rule has some significance for employers who have policies or take action that may have a disparate impact on older workers. In plain english, disparate impact essentially means an age-neutral rule that affects older workers more than younger workers; disparate treatment means a rule or action that treats older workers differently.

The easiest example to think of is suppose a police department has a physical fitness test so that officers can pursue and apprehend suspects; that practice may have a disparate impact on older workers . 

So what did the final rule clarify? According to the EEOC:
Continue Reading

In employment discrimination cases, some of the day-to-day details of a person’s employment are sometimes disputed.   Did an employee "continually" cry at work or only "occasionally" cry? And does it matter?

A recent Connecticut district court decision clarified that such trivial disputes about an employee’s background — without more — are not enough to be

Earlier this month, I posted on a bill pending before the Connecticut General Assembly that would have changed the statute of limitations for filing employment discrimination claims and allowed a Complainant to ask for a release of jurisdiction of the CHRO as soon as possible.

This week, the Labor & Public Employee Committee approved of

"Progressive Discipline" is a policy or practice that, over the years, has fallen out of favor with some employers.

What is it? It’s a practice — found also in some collective bargaining agreements — that typically provides a multi-step disciplinary process for many employment policy violations: a verbal warning, a written warning, a suspension, and