In prior posts, I’ve talked about the fluctuating work week and how it can be a useful tool for employers in limited circumstances.
Yesterday, a federal court in Connecticut had a very interesting ruling that addressed whether an employer — when faced with a suit for
Over the years, I’ve openly questioned whether the CHRO has been improperly awarding emotional distress damages and attorneys fees in employment discrimination claims.
Indeed, back in February 2009, I noted “Nearly 15 years ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court came out with a pair of decisions that seemed to put to rest the question of
Suppose you just defended against a discrimination and harassment lawsuit by two former female employees. The jury found that discrimination
and harassment had occurred. But the jury awarded one employee only $1600 in economic damages and nothing for emotional distress. For the other employee, the jury
Over the last 24 hours, there’s been a lot written about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes. Frankly, all of them are starting to say the same thing: The decision is going to hamper all class-action discrimination cases going forward.
But that statement tends to simplify the decision a bit too much. In my view, what the decision stands for is that it will be increasingly unlikely that the mega-class action (the one that covers an entire company) will be able to proceed without a very specific and tangible practice or policy that the plaintiffs can point too.
What types of things are we talking about? Well, it would be unlikely, but suppose a company had a mandatory retirement age of 60 but without a legitimate basis for doing so. In essence, it was a company-wide practice of discriminating against older workers. That type of class action will probably survive.
Continue Reading Wal-Mart v. Dukes: What The Class-Action Decision Really Means for Employers
The Connecticut Law Tribune snagged an in-depth interview with new CHRO Executive Director Robert Brothers this week.
in it, Brothers shares his views that the CHRO has made missteps in the past and that he is going to try to turn that around. Among the changes that he is considering are an revamp of the agency’s
The Jewish holidays starting tonight encourage reflection. So, it seems particularly appropriate to do some quick updates on earlier posts:
Late last week (when, of course, I was out of the office), word came down about another large verdict in an employment law case in Connecticut. The verdict, composed of $1M in compensatory damages and $3M in punitive damages in Tucker v. Journal Register Co. was first reported by the Connecticut Post last Friday here. (H/T
A few months ago, I reported on the District Court’s decision in Amara v. CIGNA, an important class-action case on ERISA retirement benefits and on alleged misrepresentations made by the Company about retirement benefits. Over the last few months, then, the court was asked to consider the issue of what is appropriate relief from the