The EEOC yesterday released important new guidance for employers on the use of arrest and conviction records by employers under Title VII. You can read the guidance here as well as a short question-and-answer document too.
For employers in Connecticut, this new guidance only adds to the state-specific rules we have here in state and
As we continue the analysis of this week’s Connecticut Supreme Court decisions, the court also clarified how employees can prove their claims of discrimination in Perez-Dickson v. City of Bridgeport. It is the first opinion in some years to do so and employers (and practitioners) will likely want to cite this case on
Today, the EEOC has published its final rule clarifying a portion of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). You can download the rule here and a FAQ from the EEOC here. The rule comes as a partial response to a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that analyzed the issue.
The rule has some significance for employers who have policies or take action that may have a disparate impact on older workers. In plain english, disparate impact essentially means an age-neutral rule that affects older workers more than younger workers; disparate treatment means a rule or action that treats older workers differently.
The easiest example to think of is suppose a police department has a physical fitness test so that officers can pursue and apprehend suspects; that practice may have a disparate impact on older workers .
So what did the final rule clarify? According to the EEOC:
Continue Reading EEOC Publishes Final Rule on Reasonable Factors Other Than Age (RFOA)
The Second Circuit today reinstated claims brought by a black firefighter against the City of New Haven alleging that he was unfairly denied promotion to the position of lieutenant because of the city’s scoring of a 2003 promotional exam. (I covered the original lawsuit back in 2009 here.)
The decision in Briscoe v. City
Yesterday, a group of black firefighters filed a motion to intervene in the Ricci v. DeStefano case claiming their rights will be "irrevocably impaired " if they aren’t allowed to join in the case. You can download the motion and the accompanying memorandum of law here. 
The motion was not unexpected though I’m not