My “innie” at work would not approve of Lumon Industries; my “outie”, though, is obsessed with it.
If you still think your “Innie” is referring to your belly button, then you likely aren’t watching one of the biggest television shows of this year — Severance (which can be found on Apple TV+).
(Here’s where
In a decision that will be officially released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld the dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim against Marvelwood School, an independent school in Kent, Connecticut. In doing so, the Court turned back an attempt to limit the employment-at-will doctrine and provided employers in Connecticut with reassurance that wrongful discharge claims will be appropriately limited.
The case, Zweig v. Marvelwood School, can be viewed here.
(An upfront disclosure: My firm represented the employer here and I represented the school on the successful appeal.)
The facts of the case are relatively straightforward and are summarized in the court’s decision. The plaintiff Aaron Zweig was employed by the defendant Marvelwood School as a history teacher and school’s Director of Food Studies. That role required him to establish and maintain a garden on campus and use it to teach a class on food studies.
In May, 2015, Mr. Zweig allegedly objected to the school’s suggestion that telephone poles that had been treated with creosote, a pesticide and wood preservative, be used to make raised beds in the garden because he believed that the chemical posed a health risk to himself and his students.Continue Reading Connecticut Appellate Court Rejects Challenge to At-Will Employment Doctrine
Years ago, I recall having a friendly conversation with another attorney in Connecticut where the topic turned to the notion of “At Will” employment.
When we couldn’t settle on an answer, we moved on to talking about whether the Hartford Whalers would ever come back.
I think we had a better answer for that question:
Remember earlier this year when the NLRB was hinting that certain at-will disclaimers (you know, the type of language in offer letters that says that the employee is at-will and can be fired for any reason or no reason at all) might be illegal under a new reading of applicable labor law?
[caption id=”attachment_4289″ align=”alignright”
At yesterday’s labor & employment law seminar, we had both Heidi Lane, a Prinicipal Attorney with the Connecticut Department of Labor, and Jonathan Kreisberg, Regional Director of the NLRB’s Hartford Office, speak to attendees about the latest developments under both Connecticut and federal law.
But for those who couldn’t make it, here
Earlier this week, I highlighted one holding from a new case from the Connecticut Appellate Court that will be released next week.
Another portion of the case dealt with interaction between the employee and the supervisor. In the case, the plaintiff alleged that she had been told by her supervisor that, after she had
On Monday, the Connecticut Bar Association held its annual meeting. Lots of labor and employment law topics were covered, some of which I missed. I’ve asked one of my bar colleagues, Rita Trivedi — who will be a Teaching Program Fellow at Columbia Law School in the fall — to share her insights on the events. My thanks to Rita for the contribution.
First up: A recap of NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon’s address to the meeting.
It’s been a busy year at the National Labor Relations Board, and Acting General Counsel (ACG) Lafe Solomon’s address at the Connecticut Bar Association’s Annual Meeting gave practitioners much to think about.
Among the highlights:
In general, many employer handbooks have clauses that provide that the employee is and will remain at-will, unless that status is changed by the company’s top executive (either in writing or otherwise). Intended to prevent a change based on the casual statements of a manager or co-worker, at-will clauses have become a bastion of employment policy.
Yet, according to Solomon, if an employee could reasonably believe that this kind of clause means that even union representation and a collective bargaining agreement cannot alter his or her at-will status, the employee might conclude that organization is futile – in which case the employer’s provision might violate the NLRA.
What then should management attorneys and their clients do to address what Solomon recognized as a valid concern?
Through a passionate discussion on all sides at the meeting, the takeaway seems murky, and few concrete examples or models came to light. Savings clauses to the effect that nothing in the policy infringes on rights under the NLRA will likely be insufficient to prevent exposure. Continue Reading Guest Post: NLRB Acting General Counsel Addresses At-Will Disclaimers and More at CBA Annual Meeting
Suppose that, after you’ve employed a worker for a year or so, she asks you for a raise. She doesn’t ask about any guarantee term for employment but you come back and give her a 36 month time frame for her salary going forward.
You draft an
Take a look at your employment-at-will language right now in your employee handbook or offer letter. (I’ll wait; if you can’t find it, you’ve got larger issues than the one I’m about to discuss).
It probably says something like this:
Your employment with the Company is on an “at-will” basis. This means that you have