Lately, I’ve been talking with more employers about permanent reductions in force.
It’s not fun.
And it’s not something I thought we’d be talking about 3 months ago, and yet it’s not foreign to me either.
In fact, I spent several of my earliest posts here on this exact topic.
As I talk with employers
A few weeks ago, I talked about the impact that a public health emergency might have on employers and the statute addressing such emergencies. Today, Governor Ned Lamont invoked those provisions in declaring a public health emergency.
But in doing so, he also invoked another provision, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 28-9 –– the civil
This blog has tried to stay apolitical throughout its 12+ years so I’m not going to start talking politics now.
But, over the last week, the issue of confidentiality provisions and non disparagement clauses in settlement agreements of discrimination claims has moved front and center of the political debate between Senator Elizabeth Warren and Michael
As someone who grew up in Connecticut and watched Channel 3 news religiously (at least before the internet), Denise D’Ascenzo, the local news anchor who passed away suddenly on Saturday, was one of a kind. She was professional, authoritative, knowledgeable, and humble.
I loved watching her both on the news and during the yearly
- Did you hear about the guy who went into a rage when he got the shorter end of the wishbone?
He just snapped!
In prior posts, I’ve described how Valentine’s Day and Halloween have been fowl holidays for employers. Many a harassment or discrimination complaint has been based on those holidays.
But what about Thanksgiving?
Last Friday, I had the opportunity to talk about Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace at the CBIA’s HR Conference. There was a lot to cover in our discussion and a lot of takeaways too.
For those in Human Resources or in-house lawyers reviewing a company’s potential use of AI in the workplace, here are three
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 Employment Law Checklist Project: The 11 Things You Should Know About Pregnant Employees
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