A new lawsuit filed last Thursday in Connecticut state court by an employer alleges that the employer’s due process rights are being violated by “inherently conflicted and irreparably unfair proceedings” at the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) — the state agency responsible for investigating and enforcing the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
In the lawsuit,
Some cases are easy to explain in a short blog post.
This is not one of them.
But a new Connecticut Appellate Court case released today, Grasso v. Connecticut Hospice, Inc. (download here) has too many nuggets of information to pass up. It is an example to employers about how cases never truly seem to be over in this litigious climate and that details are important — even in settlement agreements.
Background Facts
Here are the background facts:
The legal rulings
Over the years, I’ve openly questioned whether the CHRO has been improperly awarding emotional distress damages and attorneys fees in employment discrimination claims.
Indeed, back in February 2009, I noted “Nearly 15 years ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court came out with a pair of decisions that seemed to put to rest the question of
In some types of employment law matters, employees sometimes bring a companion claim — formally known as a claim for “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”.
Often times it fails because it is a very difficult claim to establish in the workplace. Why? Because the employee
Back in February 2009, I talked at length about whether compensatory damages (for things such as emotional distress) was properly awarded in employment discrimination claims that proceeded to a hearing at the CHRO. I went on to say back then that I believed the agency and the human rights referees at the agency had been
When the Connecticut Supreme Court came out with a decision nearly ten years ago that said that negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in the workplace were only viable when they occur during the termination process itself, it was the beginning of the end for these types of amorphous claims.
The case, Perodeau v.
The Connecticut Law Tribune snagged an in-depth interview with new CHRO Executive Director Robert Brothers this week.
in it, Brothers shares his views that the CHRO has made missteps in the past and that he is going to try to turn that around. Among the changes that he is considering are an revamp of the agency’s
I’m sometimes asked how I report on employment law cases in such a prompt manner. There’s no magic formula but I will let you in on a little shortcut I use to skim a series of new cases.
Instead of reading an entire case, my eyes first glance at the listed attorneys in the case.
UPDATED 1/26/09
A part-time secretary who worked for three weeks before resigning is entitled to $15,000 in emotional distress damages and six months back pay, according to a recent CHRO Hearing Officer decision. The case is particularly notable because the company was Claywell Electric, run by the now-jailed Kurt Claywell.
The employer in the case
For companies involved in employment discrimination litigation, there is always a question of how far to push on discovery issues.
A new case decided this week in U.S. District Court in Connecticut allows employers to push pretty hard to get an employee’s medical and therapist records. In order for that to happen, the employee needs to put