One of the underlying fears that many employers have is that anti-discrimination laws will eventually be interpreted so broadly, that they will be open to litigation even for the most remote possibilities. Thus, the idea of "standing" (in essence, who has t
he "right" to sue another party) is one that can sometimes be used to
Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. – The Employee’s Perspective
I’ve returned from vacation today with hundreds of e-mails to dig through and about 3000 posts in various RSS feeds.
But one e-mail I received relating to the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, bears some immediate discussion. The comments are from Attorney Richard Hayber, the attorney representing
Curry v. Allan S. Goodman Part V – Do Employers Now Need to Accommodate Mental Disorders and Learning Disabilities?
Reading the Connecticut Supreme Court case of Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. decided last week, I’m struck by how many questions the decision seems to raise — and how many are left unanswered. I’ve discussed the case and some questions it raises before, most recently here. 
The case appears to stand for the
Court: Seeking A Prejudgment Remedy Is Not The Same as a Full-Fledged Lawsuit
The Connecticut Supreme Court is full of employment-related cases this month.
This next one is a bit more technical but it has some real-world implications — namely, do employers (or frankly, anyone who is sued) have some protection for vexatious lawsuits. The Court decision suggests that they don’t have as much as one might think.
Connecticut Supreme Court Throws Out $41M Verdict for Injured Worker
When a worker is injured on the job, it’s tragic. It’s even more tragic when that employee is left a paraplegic.
When that same worker and his wife are awarded $41 million by a jury against a general contractor, it’s noteworthy. It’s particularly noteworthy in Connecticut, which is not known historically for its high jury
Blogs and Newspapers React to Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc.
The blog and press coverage of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s case of Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. continues this week with two additional shout-outs to this blog. In addition, another resource cited to the decision that is worth mentioning.
First up, the well-run and informative Point of Law blog, edited by Walter Olsen
Curry v. Allan S. Goodman Part IV – Does an Employer Have a Duty to Accommodate an Employee EVEN AFTER Firing?
Like the television show, Lost, reading the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc. will leave readers with more questions than answers at the end of the day. (For more background on the case, see this prior post.)
Those unanswered and indeed, troubling questions arise from the suggestion by the
Connecticut Supreme Court Rules that Employers Have Implicit Duty to Accommodate Under State Law – Part I
In a case that automatically vaults to the top of important disability discrimination cases in Connecticut, the Connecticut Supreme Court today held, in an issue of first impression, that employers have a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation to disabled workers under state law, even though the law does not explicitly say so.
While
Food Server Class Action on Tip Credits – An Update
A few weeks ago, I posted on a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court that ruled that an order denying class certification is not an appealable final judgment. I said back then that the case, Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, gives employ
ers and other defendants in class actions, "an important arrow in
Conn. Supreme Court: Advances on Commissions Need Not Be Repaid, Unless Agreement Explicitly Says So
Continuing a very busy Wednesday in employment law (where were all these cases earlier this month?), the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a noteworthy decision on a few different wage issues. Because of time limitations, I’ll address the case in a few separate posts.
The case, Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Technologies, Inc. et al. , was