In some prior posts here and here, I talked about the development of artificial intelligence tools in the employment law context.

If you’ve been reading the headlines, the latest AI “tool” is a Chatbot titled “ChatGPT”.  You can read the latest The New York Times piece about it here.

In this context, it can

On November 1 at 9 a.m., I’ll be making a return appearance to WNPR’s award-winning Where We Live show.  You can listen live or download it as a podcast.

Tomorrow’s topic is one that we never would’ve dreamed of years ago — Long COVID.

Long COVID is the term that the CDC uses to

Sometimes it’s hard to appreciate how things have changed since the pandemic hit and the challenges we face going forward.

I was thinking about all those little things over the weekend when I put pocket change in my little “change jar” that I keep in my bedroom.

You see, prior to the pandemic, at the

It would be easy to say that the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday has nothing to do with the workplace and therefore presents no employment law issues.

But such an approach would not only be foolish, it would be wrong.

The full impact of the decision will be felt for an entire generation while a full analysis of the decision’s impact will take some more time too (though my partners have done a great job with one here).  But it’s apparent from the first few reads of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is that it presents a real challenge for employers and is so disruptive in so many ways both for employers and employees.

First, the decision minimizes (at best) or ignores (at worst) the concept of “stare decisis” which is that the Court’s prior decisions become binding precedent — and therefore have meaning.  People can rely on those decisions to predict what will happen next and respect the decision once it gets made.  If the Court undermines that concept, it risks becoming exactly like the much maligned National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is a federal agency that, some would argue, changes its mind depending on how the Board is composed (whether Democrat majority or Republican).  For example of such a flip flop, see one of my prior posts about the NLRB here.

This is not a good thing; the Rule of Law depends on people having some faith in the institution itself.  If people think the system is rigged to whatever party is in power, then the more likely they will be to minimize its importance or keep fighting until they think the system is in their favor.  Stare Decisis provided some measure of comfort to parties and gave employers the opportunity to plan for the future.

Continue Reading Dobbs and the Impact of the Court’s Decision for Employers

With the end of the year finally here, I know I could do yet another post on the OSHA vax-or-test standard given that the Supreme Court on Wednesday announced expedited oral arguments on the legality of that rule and the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. That’s now scheduled for January 7, 2022.

But really, with

While mandatory vaccination policies are all the rage now, there’s an important new Connecticut law that is a “must-do” for employers here and not much time left to get into compliance.

Effective October 1, 2021, employers are prohibited from failing or refusing to provide a job applicant with the “wage range” of the position for