In catching up over some interesting employment law cases from 2015, I came across Lennon v. Dolce Vida Medical Spa (download here). You would be forgiven if you missed it because it’s an unreported Superior Court decision on a seemingly-technical issue.
But, if followed by other courts, it has a notable twist.
First, the
Just a quick followup today on a post from last month.
As I reported then, a District Court judge dismissed a closely-watched EEOC lawsuit against CVS challenging a pretty standard severance agreement. But the grounds for the dismissal were unknown back then.
The wait is over; the written decision was released yesterday. For
Back in February, I noted that a motion to dismiss in federal court — while still difficult to achieve — still had a pulse. That’s important for employers because it provides a mechanism for getting rid of frivolous claims early on with lower costs than federal lawsuits typically cost.
A new district court case gives
Time once again to bring back an occasional feature that takes a look at stories that have now fallen from the local newspapers’ headlines. After all, have you ever noticed that it is somehow "big news" that a lawsuit is filed but you rarely hear about a lawsuit’s dismissal?
This installment updates the lawsuit that
Just when you think you’ve seen it all, another case comes around to prove that theory incorrect.
The latest example is Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges (download here), a Connecticut Appellate Court decision officially released today. In the case, an employee who claimed he was not promoted in retaliation for earlier
To bring state law employment discrimination claims to court, it is well-known that an employee has to first file the claim with the state agency responsible for investigating the claim (the CHRO) (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-101(a)). And most people believe that all the employee has to do is then wait for the CHRO