Led, in part, by a crusade from former Fox News hosts Gretchen Carlson and Julie Roginsky, who settled private cases with Fox News involving sexual harassment and signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), we’re likely to see a bill at the General Assembly this year to ban employers’ use of NDAs and non-disparagement agreements in discrimination complaints.

As I continue my examination of some of the programs arising from the ABA Labor & Employment Conference held earlier this month in Seattle, one of the more notable topics was addressing wage & hour laws with employees now working across the country.

The great reshuffle has had a significant impact in the workplace since

In prior posts, I’ve talked about the difficulty for employers in getting a motion for summary judgment granted in state court in discrimination cases.

(Motions for summary judgment are procedural tools that can be used when there are no disputed issues of material fact and therefore the court can decide the case on law

One month to go in the legislative session. So there are lots of bills that are technically “under consideration”.

But let’s face it: Only a small portion of them will receive enough votes to pass the legislature. With a filibuster in play, only those bills that can garner some bi-partisan support are likely to be

One of my most popular segments on this blog has been the ongoing “dialogue” with Nina Pirrotti, an employee-side employment law attorney that we do from time to time. Nina is a partner at Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C. based on New Haven and is a member of the Executive Board of the

In a non-election year, the Connecticut legislature always seems to be extra busy considering workplace-related bills.

This year is no exception. If anything, it feels like it’s hit another gear. CTNewsJunkie had a detailed article yesterday about the subject.

The Labor & Public Employees Committee has considered, and is considering, a wide array of bills

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