The United States Department of Labor today released new regulations that dramatically change the existing rules on when two businesses are “joint employers” under federal wage and hour laws.
I’ve previously discussed the changing rules in some prior posts here and here, so you should catch up there first if this is the first
What does it feel like winning the lottery? I don’t know but it has to feel a lot like getting picked for jury duty.
(Wait, am I the only one to get excited at the prospect of jury duty? <grins sheepishly>)
If you’ve been reading this blog long enough, you may remember that I’ve been called to jury duty before. Sometimes, it’s been cancelled but back in 2011, I made it all the way to a courtroom — only to be dismissed when I noted that I knew the attorneys at both lawfirms.
Anyways….I’ve been called to jury duty again next week, which gave me the inspiration for this week’s Employment Law Checklist Project post #emplawchecklist. The law is found in a different section than most — and a reminder that not all the laws that employers have to follow are in one neat package.
In fact, this might be one of more confusing employment laws out there.
The key portions of jury duty are actually found in two separate provisions. If your eyes glaze over at the laws, just skip to the summary down below.
In my new series (you can read the background here), I’m going to highlight an employment law that employers in Connecticut need to follow. Some of them can lead to lawsuits; some may just lead to fines. I’ve titled this the “Employment Law Checklist Project”.
First up: Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40h. This law
One of my colleagues, Mike Chase has, for the last several years, been tweeting at “Crime a Day” about the various federal criminal laws and regulations that we have. Or rather, the thousands upon thousands of them. In fact, Mike has now put out a great book “How to Become a Federal Criminal” that is
If April Showers bring May…Oh never mind. In Connecticut, April might as well mean that the General Assembly is getting serious about the bills under consideration. All the proposals that make headlines in February mean nothing until committees start to vote on the bills and the bills start getting the spotlight on them.
Usually by
On “Survivor”, one of my favorite broadcast TV shows (or, as my YouTube/Netflix watching teens might say — “what’s that?”) the notion of “immunity” plays a central role in the outcome of an episode.
And in a decision released last week by the Connecticut Supreme Court, whether or not to grant immunity again plays a
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Janus v. AFSCME (download here) reversed 40 years of labor law precedent and concluded that requiring public employees to pay “agency fees” for labor unions that they don’t want to belong to violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Previously, prior cases have banned forcing public sector
Ten years ago today, I wrote about the then-Tenth Anniversary of one of the horrible events that made a lasting impact on Connecticut employers.
I recounted the Connecticut Lottery shootings that happened a decade earlier.
Today, marks 20 years. (The CT Mirror has another perspective here.)
The New York Times report of that event is
By now, you may have read about yesterday’s decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Connecticut is in that federal circuit (along with New York and Vermont). You can download the decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., here. (You’ve been warned though
The 2018 session of the General Assembly started last week and increasing workplace training is a top priority for passage.
Indeed, it is not surprising that we’re starting to see the first proposed legislation to address the number of harassment claims that have been making headlines the last six months.
Governor’s Bill 5043 sets up