Back in October, I provided a preliminary assessment of what a COVID-19 vaccine might mean for employers.  But as I noted back then, the EEOC’s guidance was not yet updated.

Now, the EEOC has finally provided an update of sorts for employers.

In doing so, the new guidance makes plain what many of us suspected

I’m excited. And nervous. And happy. And angry. And energized. And exhausted.

And my oldest daughter hasn’t even started her first day of college next week.

(Proud Dad aside: She’s headed to WPI next week as a freshman where she wants to study aerospace engineering!)

Around Connecticut, the nervousness and excitement has been palpable and

Way back in April, the state first instituted a mandatory mask and face covering rule under Executive Order 7BB. 

On Friday, the state updated it in Executive Order 7NNN by requiring medical documentation in order to be exempt. Here’s all that you need to know on the changes.

The new rule states: “Effective immediately, any

The Connecticut Appellate Court issued a new decision (officially released today) that will have important ramifications for employers proceeding with the CHRO mandatory mediation stage.  Specifically, based on this ruling, most settlement discussions during the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities’ mediation stage will be inadmissible in a later court proceeding.   The decision also holds

The laws regarding the protections owed to pregnant employees got far broader a few years back. In fact, the statutory provision prohibiting discrimination against pregnant employees has eleven key items. Rather than tackle them in separate posts, we’ll “super-size” this post to cover it all.

The main law is set forth at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-60(b)(7), though it is to be read in conjunction with the state’s broad anti-discrimination laws.

The key prohibitions state that it shall be a “discriminatory employment practice” for an employer (or the employer’s agent):

(A) To terminate a woman’s employment because of her pregnancy;

(B) to refuse to grant to that employee a reasonable leave of absence for disability resulting from her pregnancy;

(C) to deny to that employee, who is disabled as a result of pregnancy, any compensation to which she is entitled as a result of the accumulation of disability or leave benefits accrued pursuant to plans maintained by the employer;

(D) to fail or refuse to reinstate the employee to her original job or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other service credits upon her signifying her intent to return unless, in the case of a private employer, the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so;

(E) to limit, segregate or classify the employee in a way that would deprive her of employment opportunities due to her pregnancy;

(F) to discriminate against an employee or person seeking employment on the basis of her pregnancy in the terms or conditions of her employment;

(G) to fail or refuse to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee or person seeking employment due to her pregnancy, unless the employer can demonstrate that such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on such employer;
Continue Reading Employment Law Checklist Project: The 11 Things You Should Know About Pregnant Employees

Late on Tuesday (April 23, 2019) the CHRO released new Legal Enforcement Guidance on “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Conditions at Work”. 

Or you might call it a “Bluepaper” instead – as a “one-pager” on the subject called it.

That one-pager was prepared by the Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School’s Jerome

The Connecticut Appellate Court has an interesting case coming out officially early next week about an employer’s obligations to provide leave as a “reasonable accommodation”. You can download Barbabosa v. Board of Education here.

In it, the Court concludes that when attendance is an essential function of the job (as it will be for most