The filing of a discrimination complaint at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities has certainly garnered a wide variety of responses from the local and national media. Indeed, yesterday, I was one of several invited guests to appear on WNPR’s "Where We Live". (You can download the podcast here.)

But what’s

Over ten years ago, former WFSB (Channel 3) news anchor Janet Peckinpaugh shook up the media market in Hartford with claims of gender and age discrimination against her former news station. She claimed that she had been let go because she had gotten too old.

At the time, the case had all the elements of

Tell the truth. Be consistent.

Those are common refrains among lawyers to clients. Why? Because inconsistencies are a crucial way for opposing parties to establish their case.

In employment cases, an employee may not have "direct" evidence of discrimination, but courts allow an employee to piece together evidence based on circumstances, including evidence that

Attorneys can go months — if not years — without Supreme Court guidance on employment law issues. But today, the Supreme Court issued its second employment-law related decision in as many days.

However, for the second day in a row, the Supreme Court issued a decision that, at the end of the day, isn’t really about

Lawyers representing the class of retirees from CIGNA will argue that their clients are entitled to "hundreds of millions" of dollars in retirement benefits as a result of misrepresentations made by CIGNA, according to a report in yesterday’s Hartford Courant. 

The Courant — which finally reported on the decision 5 days after it came

Difficult, time-consuming, and expensive litigation with uncertain results – such as this case represents – is assuredly not a sensible way to manage the Nation’s retirement system for either employers or employees. Sadly, at least for now, litigation appears to be the only option available to them.

In a 122 page opus on ERISA law