If you’ve been reading this blog long enough, you know that this is my absolute favorite time of the year.

No, it’s not Thanksgiving (though we should give thanks as I’ll explain in a second). But rather, it’s the release of the Annual Case Processing Report from the CHRO! 

Yes, we should give thanks to

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

Can an employer ever win a motion for summary judgment on a discrimination case in state court?

The prevailing wisdom is no.  A fool’s errand, some might say.

But a new Connecticut Appellate Court case (Alvarez v. City of Middletown) shows at least what’s possible.

The case has some details that stand out. The

One of the quirks of discrimination law in Connecticut concerns sexual orientation.  Back in 1991, the General Assembly passed a wide-ranging bill that added sexual orientation as one of the protected classes that employers could not base decisions on.

Sort of.

Rather than add sexual orientation to the key employment law statute that bars discrimination

As the dust continues to settle from the General Assembly, bills that didn’t get a lot of press beforehand are continuing to come into the light.

One of them is new Public Act 19-95, which was just signed by Governor Lamont yesterday.

The bill treats being a member of the “Civil Air Patrol”

The so-called “Time’s Up” bill that would make major changes to the sexual harassment and discrimination laws in the state — including adding new training requirements — went through final passage at the House on Saturday.  But don’t start changing your policies just yet.

Various news outlets are reporting that a “fix” bill — that

Senate Bill 3, titled “Combatting Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment” has been modified since first introduced and passed the Senate late last week.  Despite the title, the bill would impact every discrimination case filed in the state and would make significant changes to the sexual harassment prevention training requirements.

It is awaiting a vote

Now that Thanksgiving is in the past, it’s time to look forward to the future.

Well, not before getting a recap of everything that transpired in employment law in the last year. Or at least everything that we can fit in an hour long seminar.

The webinar that broke attendance records last year is back

Lawyers love their cocktail chatter. And at a recent bar event, an interesting hypothetical came up among lawyers:

Suppose an employee is trying to get pregnant and is thinking about infertility treatments.  She’s considering time off for rest, and perhaps even for some in vitro fertilization (IVF) appointments. Perhaps even the doctor has said that

One of the benefits of writing a blog as long as I have is that you get to track the progress of a law or legal development over a number of years.

It was back in 2012, for example, that I first provided a comprehensive summary of a new medical marijuana bill that was