Earlier today, my firm held a webinar featuring a conversation with Heidi Lane of the Connecticut Department of Labor to talk about the upcoming changes to the state FMLA law effective January 1, 2022. My thanks to Ms. Lane for participating and sharing her insights.
You can view the entire webinar here (and I’d encourage
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
One of the rules in employment discrimination cases that seems to have blurred of late is the notion that a complaint of discrimination must be filed within 180 days after the alleged discrimination.
A new decision from Presiding Human Rights Referee at the CHRO (CHRO ex rel. Roig v. State of Conn., Department of
As the legislative session continues to roll around, sometimes you can get caught up in bills that have no chance of getting passed.
For example, the General Assembly — as presented structured — will never pass a bill making Connecticut a Right to Work state.
But when the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
Yesterday on Twitter, a Connecticut legislator posted this:
“There oughta be a law…!” Hey Connecticut, legislators have 5 days to submit ideas for bills. What new laws should the #CTLeg consider?
— Matt Lesser (@MattLesser) January 12, 2015
State Representative Matt Lesser, be careful what you ask for. But since you asked, here’s a
My thanks to my colleague, Mick Lavelle, who has drafted the following post on a noteworthy issue decided today by the Connecticut Appellate Court. For employers with long-standing discrimination claims, it’s worth understanding what the statute of limitations are on such claims.
Most employers know that claims of employment discrimination can be brought under
Earlier this afternoon, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. By doing so, he approved of several changes to the FMLA . But before you rip up your existing FMLA policies, the provisions relate to the military-related leaves under the Act. (H/T Ohio Employer’s Law Blog) The changes as a whole
To bring state law employment discrimination claims to court, it is well-known that an employee has to first file the claim with the state agency responsible for investigating the claim (the CHRO) (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-101(a)). And most people believe that all the employee has to do is then wait for the CHRO
Today is the final day of the General Assembly and the Paid Sick Leave proposal (S.B. 217) is expected to come before the House before the close of business. But, perhaps in a sign that it is doomed to die a procedural death, it has drawn nearly 25 proposed amendments. 