Yesterday, the Fourth Circuit granted the federal government’s motion to stay (temporarily suspend) a lower court’s preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of two Executive Orders issued by President Trump in January 2025. I wrote about that injunction in a prior post on our firm’s sister blog. These Executive Orders direct federal agencies
On a new episode of our From Lawyer to Empoyer podcast which just dropped wherever you listen to your podcasts, my colleague Emily McDonough Souza and I break down the key developments from the Trump Administration’s first 45 days and the key takeaways from the conversation.
Here are some key takeaways from the conversation:
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to present (along with my colleague Emily McDonough Souza) to the CBIA’s HR Conference about the developments from the Trump administration to employers. It was a massive crowd of over 400 HR professionals and I’m thankful for the opportunity.
I had three main takeaways from the presentation that I thought
It’s been a busy few weeks for some (many? most?) employers as well as the nation as the new Trump administration has taken over and issued a flood of new Executive Orders, funding freezes, and press statements.
It’s been hard to keep up and that seems to be the point. “Flood the Zone” as one
Among the flurry of Executive Orders issued by President Trump this week was one that may have direct implications for private employers — or at least attempts to.
The Order, entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” is certainly unique in its nature.
It revokes an executive order that has been understood to be
I’ll admit that it can sometimes be hard to talk about the political ramifications that elections have on employers because some might think you’re taking sides.
Like everyone, I certainly have my own feelings but as I’ve said on this blog for over a decade, this blog has tried to take a decidedly apolitical bent.
As I’ve hinted in some prior posts, my colleagues and I have been working on an all-new labor & employment webinar series for this fall. Today, I get to announce it.
This webinar series will feature in-depth legal insights and practical takeaways for human resource professionals as well as business stakeholders and decision makers on
At our Shipman & Goodwin Labor & Employment Law seminar last week, one of the hot topics that got attendees talking was about minimum wage & overtime rules — both of which are in the midst of change.
But my fellow partners brought up another law in that discussion that shouldn’t be overlooked. And
January 1st is typically a time for new laws to kick in and 2019 is no exception.
For employers, the biggest change is one that I discussed way back in May with amendments to Connecticut’s Pay Equity law.
The new law prohibits employers from asking a job applicant his or her wage and salary history.
If at first you succeed, try it again.
Well, that may not be how the saying goes, but the first back-and-forth post between me and Nina Pirrotti, an employee-side attorney, was so well received that we’re back for another conversation.
Today’s topic: What legislation are we both keeping our eyes out for at the Connecticut General Assembly?
The Dialogue Begins
Dan Schwartz: So Nina, our first post was such a hit that I think we’re due for an encore. Thanks for being up for this.
It has only bewn a few weeks, but it feels like we’re moving at warp speed on developments. We could spend another post just on The Donald, sorry, Mr. President. Somehow I think we’re likely to talk about that again soon.
But let’s focus today on some of the legislative items we’re keeping an eye on, particularly in Connecticut. Each year, it seems like our General Assembly likes to roll out fresh employment law ideas.
Is there a particular bill that you’re keeping your eye on now from an employee-side perspective?
Nina Pirrotti: I’m so glad you asked! Yes, let me tell you about one bill that has been on my mind on the federal level (I am speaking about it at an ABA conference in sunny Puerto Vallarta really soon) and then I will give you a couple of highlights from our backyard.
The federal bill that looms large for me right now (although concededly perhaps not as large as the prospect of sitting on the beach, tequila based beverage in hand) is the misleadingly named Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (“LARA”) which would force judges to respond to Rule 11 motions in a particular manner.
Rule 11 allows for the possibility of sanctions to be imposed on attorneys or parties who submit (or later advocate for) pleadings which have been filed for an improper purpose or which contain frivolous arguments or claims.
While Rule 11 motions rear their ugly heads relatively rarely in litigation, a newly invigorated Republican majority in Congress has proposed LARA which would amend the sanctions provisions in Rule 11 to remove all judicial discretion – – regardless of the circumstances of the individual case- – in two critical respects.
First it would require the court to sanction any attorney, law firm, or party who violates the rule. Second it forces judges who find the rule has been violated to order the offending party to pay the other party’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Those in my world who oppose LARA say that there is no proof Rule 11 is not working in its current form, that the changes would burden the courts and that its “once size fits all” mandatory sanctions would unfairly penalize employees in civil lawsuits.
Closer to home, two bills come to mind. The first is a proposed modification of C.G.S.A. 31-51m, a statute which bars employers from retaliating against employees who report employers’ unethical or legal wrongdoings to public bodies.
The modification seeks to protect employees who complain about such conduct internally or who refuse to participate in an activity they believe to be in violation of the law. It also seeks to extend the timeline to bring an action under the law (employees now have only 90 days to file) and to provide for a greater array of damages if the employer violates the statute.
The second is a proposal to provide eligible employees with paid Family and Medical Leave Act leave. The proposed legislation would require employees to contribute 1/2 of 1% of their wages to it (there would be no employer contribution) and employees cannot opt out it.
We plaintiff employment lawyers would welcome both pieces of legislation as long overdue and reasonably tailored to protect Connecticut’s workforce.
What are your thoughts from the other side of the aisle, Dan? Or is there other proposed legislation that has captured your attention?Continue Reading The Dialogue: What Legislation We’re Keeping Our Eyes On