In a 3-2 decision officially released today, the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on a little-used statute to expand the narrow wrongful discharge claim available to employees who believe they have been fired in violation of an important public policy.
The case is one that only an employment lawyer could love as it turns on definitions
As the Delta variant continues make its presence known, more employers are continuing to explore mandatory vaccination policies for their staff. This comes on the heels of Governor Lamont’s executive order that requires teachers and others to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing.
My colleagues and I have been fielding questions on
In a decision that will be officially released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld the dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim against Marvelwood School, an independent school in Kent, Connecticut. In doing so, the Court turned back an attempt to limit the employment-at-will doctrine and provided employers in Connecticut with reassurance that wrongful discharge claims will be appropriately limited.
The case, Zweig v. Marvelwood School, can be viewed here.
(An upfront disclosure: My firm represented the employer here and I represented the school on the successful appeal.)
The facts of the case are relatively straightforward and are summarized in the court’s decision. The plaintiff Aaron Zweig was employed by the defendant Marvelwood School as a history teacher and school’s Director of Food Studies. That role required him to establish and maintain a garden on campus and use it to teach a class on food studies.
In May, 2015, Mr. Zweig allegedly objected to the school’s suggestion that telephone poles that had been treated with creosote, a pesticide and wood preservative, be used to make raised beds in the garden because he believed that the chemical posed a health risk to himself and his students.Continue Reading Connecticut Appellate Court Rejects Challenge to At-Will Employment Doctrine
We are still several months away from a vaccine for COVID-19, and probably still even further away from one that will be readily available to the general population.
But I’ve already heard grumblings from employers wondering — can I compel employees to get a vaccine when one is available for the coronavirus?
It’s a
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the “ministerial exception” that bars some employment discrimination claims against religious institutions, also bars such claims by elementary school teachers at private Catholic schools. The case further clarifies an exception that came to prominence back in 2012 and expands the reach of the exception. I noted then
On “Survivor”, one of my favorite broadcast TV shows (or, as my YouTube/Netflix watching teens might say — “what’s that?”) the notion of “immunity” plays a central role in the outcome of an episode.
And in a decision released last week by the Connecticut Supreme Court, whether or not to grant immunity again plays a
Years ago, I recall having a friendly conversation with another attorney in Connecticut where the topic turned to the notion of “At Will” employment.
When we couldn’t settle on an answer, we moved on to talking about whether the Hartford Whalers would ever come back.
I think we had a better answer for that question:
If you like to open your presents on Christmas Eve, the U.S. Department of Labor is for you. Last night, the DOL posted the final revised rule on overtime on its website ahead of its planned announcement this afternoon.
What a gift for employment lawyers! Needless to say, I was up late unwrapping all my
To a recent Superior Court decision, everything. But only if you have been represented by counsel. Confused? Let’s backup for a second.
A prerequisite to filing a discrimination claim in state court is that the employee file the same claim before the Commission
Over the past month, after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, much has been made in the press about how it is unprecedented for the court to consider a company’s religious beliefs in making its decisions.
The issue of taking into account a corporation’s religious belief in the workplace has been also catapulted to