If you’re like me, your brain can only handle so much during the summer months. Between vacations and the start of school, it can be easy to overlook some of the employment law developments from the last month or two. So I thought I’d use the next few blog posts to provide a catch up.
If you like to open your presents on Christmas Eve, the U.S. Department of Labor is for you. Last night, the DOL posted the final revised rule on overtime on its website ahead of its planned announcement this afternoon.
What a gift for employment lawyers! Needless to say, I was up late unwrapping all my
The New York Times reported this morning that President Obama will ask the United States Department of Labor to revamp its regulations on the so-called “white collar” exemptions to the federal overtime laws.
Specifically, he will direct the DOL “to require overtime pay for several million additional fast-food managers, loan officers, computer technicians and others
Employees generally are eligible for overtime if they work more than 40 hours of work, unless one of the limited exceptions applies.
Employers typically rely on one of the three white-collar exemptions — administrative, executive or learned professional — when making arguments as to why an employee is not eligible for overtime.
A new federal
In a decision that will be officially released on Tuesday, November 24th, the Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled that wrongful termination and breach of implied contract claims cannot be brought against the State of Connecticut due to the protections of sovereign i.jpg)
mmunity.
The case Ware v. State of Connecticut (download here), will be
Within a 702 page state budget, you should always expect surprises.
This year’s budget — passed by th.jpg)
e Connecticut General Assembly earlier this week on essentially a party-line vote — has a few surprises including a provision that establishes a new independent Office Of Administrative Hearings.
The OAH will be housed in the Commission
In this blog, I often focus on the substantive law prohibiting discrimination cases, such as those 
under ADEA. But a case decided late last week demonstrates the importance of making sure that employees follow the procedural requirements required by law under anti-discrimination provisions..
In Cassotto v. Potter (D.Conn, Oct. 21, 2008) (Hall, J.) (download here)