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
Recently, I saw a skiing dog. Oh, and it was wearing sunglasses too.
To be fair (to the dog), it was actually tucked neatly in a backpack while the owner was in line for the chairlift.
I didn’t actually see the dog skiing, but you get the picture. (Which I did capture!)
I thought I
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
For those unfamiliar with the way a lot of Connecticut laws get implemented, October 1st could seem like just another day. (Though for my kids, they would be impressed that it was a different October 1st in 1982 that EPCOT opened at Disney World.)
But a lot of bills that are passed by the Connecticut General Assembly go into effect on October 1st each year. This year is no exception.
For employers, the biggest of these bills is the new law concerning “Pregnant Women in the Workplace”. I’ve previously recapped the law for pregnant employees in a prior post way back in May, but because we’re getting close to implementation, it’s time for a little refresher.
Existing law makes it a discriminatory practice to:
Those rules remain unchanged. But the new law revises some other provisions and adds more to the protections. Effective October 1st, it will now also be unlawful to:
The changes don’t stop there. The new law also explains that the word “pregnancy” will also include “pregnancy, childbirth or a related condition, including but not limited to, lactation”. It also expands the definition of “reasonable accommodation ” and “undue hardship”.
Continue Reading Two Weeks Until New Protections for Pregnant Employees Become Effective
Labor Day has come and gone. Summer is over. Can we all stop listening to Despacito now. (Please?)
But it’s time to look at a decision that came out during the dog days of summer that might have been overlooked. A recent federal district court case (Noffsinger v. SSN Niantic Operating Co. LLC, download
The Connecticut Appellate Court today released an important disability discrimination decision that gives employers some support for employees who struggle with employees who ask for “accommodations” for an indefinite leave for a medical condition.
The case ostensibly addresses the request for “indefinite leave” which I’ve previously talked about it in prior posts.
But the case
While the relaunch of the blog has been delayed a bit more (I swear it’s coming soon), it’s time to have another post in the interim. My colleague Gary Starr is back with an interesting decision from the state next door — Massachusetts. As some Connecticut employers cross state lines (and marijuana cases continue to