Update August 16th: Late yesterday, I received further confirmation that the provisions regarding FMLA were withdrawn entirely from the proposed Democrat-led budget bill. Moreover, the General Assembly early this morning voted on a Republican version of the budget implementer, which now goes on to Governor Malloy (who has indicated he will veto the bill). That version did not contain language on the FMLA changes either. So for now, employers can stand down. However, employers should continue to track the changes both this year and next. FMLA changes may make a return at some point.   

Update at 2:06 p.m.: Since publishing this article, I’ve now heard from three people who work at or with the legislature that while they can’t find fault with my analysis of the proposed legislation as described below, the section on FMLA was intended to address a separate issue.   As a result, it appears that the section on CTFMLA changes discussed below may be withdrawn this afternoon.

What the motives were for this language are far beyond the scope of this blog; this blog has always tried to provide an apolitical analysis of the law and legislation.  For employers, just take note that the budget implementer bill language on FMLA is now likely to be withdrawn when the final bill is considered. 

Late this morning, the proposed bill implementing the state’s budget (a so-called “budget implementer”) was finally released. And like years past, the bill contains some nuggets that are seemingly unrelated to a budget.

As the proposal is a monstrous 925 pages (download here), I’m still reviewing it but employers in Connecticut need to be aware immediately about some proposed changes to the state’s FMLA provisions.  First, a caveat: This is still very much a work in progress so employers should keep a close eye and contact their legislators if interested.

  • First, the bill would expand the scope of relationships covered to include siblings and grandparents/grandkids.  Thus, if you needed to take time off to care for a grandparent, that would now be a covered leave.
  • Second, the bill would revise the definition of employer to now include the state, municipalities, public schools and private schools which means the CTFMLA would now apply to all of them.
  • But then things get even a bit more confusing. The bill changes the definition of “eligible employee” presumably to exclude state workers who are subject to collective bargaining. BUT the bill’s language is far more imprecise and would seemingly exclude ALL workers who are subject to collective bargaining (whether private or public).  Specifically, the definition of “eligible employee” would now mean an employee “who is exempt from collective bargaining…” It does not have the qualifier that perhaps the drafters intended, though, given the speed in which this has been prepared, readers take caution.
  • Next. and quite significantly, the bill would seemingly extend the leave parents get upon the birth of a child or for placement of a child for adoption of foster care.  Specifically, it indicates (line 8472!) that:

Leave under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section may be extended up to sixteen workweeks beyond the expiration of such leave due under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section.

  • Thus, Connecticut employers would seemingly need to provide up to 32 weeks (16 + 16 more) of unpaid leave for new parents.
  • But the bill goes beyond that too — for leaves for birth, adoption placement, care of a family member or self or to serve as a organ or bone marrow donor, the bill expands the leave too.  Specifically, in line 8529:

An eligible employee may extend his or her personal leave provided under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D) or (E) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) for up to twenty-four workweeks after the expiration of any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave with proper medical certification.

  • In addition, the bill goes on to add in line 8534, that for leaves for serious health conditions of self or family member, or for donor leaves:

The use of sick leave by an eligible employee for leave provided under subparagraph (C), (D) or (E) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed an incident or occurrence under an absence control policy.

The changes are coming fast and furious and it is possible that this proposed bill won’t get passed in its current form.  It’s certainly far beyond the paid FMLA program that was originally under discussion by the legislature.  These changes would be effective in two weeks — October 1, 2017 — which doesn’t given employers almost any time to revise their policies or train their employees.

And I must confess that I’m still a bit surprised by the breadth of this and scratch my head as to whether this language was intended to mean what it appears to say.  I’d like to see a the office of legislative research recap this bill too.

In the meantime, I’m still reviewing the remainder of the bill for other changes relevant to private employers.  (It’s 925 pages and 26452 lines long so bear with me.)  Have you spotted anything else? Add it in the comments below.

There are many confusing aspects of employment law — not the least of which is that certain laws only apply to employers of a certain size.

For example, the federal age discrimination law, ADEA, only applies to a business if it has 20 or more employees who worked for the company for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last).

Now in some instances, that might not matter in Connecticut because Connecticut’s general anti-discrimination laws generally (with exception) apply to employers of three or more employees.

Why does this matter? Because there are some aspects of this federal law (and others) that don’t apply to small employers.

One prime example of this is the requirement that employers comply with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act, which is part of ADEA.  This law requires separation agreements to have certain conditions, including 21 days for the employee to consider the release.  But employers who are under 20 employees are not covered by ADEA and thus don’t need to follow this particular legal requirement (even if it may still be a good idea).

Another area that this comes up is in FMLA coverage.  Most people are aware that FMLA only applies to employers who have 50 or more employees.

But there is a secondary requirement that is often overlooked — that the employee asking for such leave be located in an office that itself has 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius.

By way of example: Suppose an employer has 1000 employees, but only 25 located in Connecticut and there are no offices within 75 miles.  An employee has a serious health condition; is the employee eligible for FMLA leave?

The answer is no.  At least 50 employees must work for the employer within a 75 mile radius.

Practical Law had a good summary of this:  

Employers should analyze whether the employee meets the 50 employee and 75 miles requirement when the employee gives notice that leave is needed. An employee who is deemed eligible for FMLA leave continues to be eligible for the next 12 months even if the number of employees drops below 50. To determine whether an employee is eligible, the distance is based on:the employee’s physical work site using surface miles over public streets, roads, highways and waterways by the shortest route; or if an employee has no fixed work site, the employee’s work site is his home base, the site to which he reports or the site from which his work is assigned.

Now, nothing prevents an employer from giving all of its employees FMLA-leave, but they’re not required to.

Thus, employers who are in various locations should be sure to look at all the employer-size rules to figure how where they are covered and how. Because size really does matter.

GA2Today is the last day of the Connecticut General Assembly regular session.  So it’s a good time to take a look at some of the bills pending or passed.  Strangely, things seem pretty quiet on the employment law front.  But after the dust settles, I’ll have another update. Here is where we stand as of early this morning (Wednesday).

  • Last night, the Senate approved of the measure (House Bill 6668) expanding protections in the workplace for workers who are pregnant.  It was previously passed by the House.   I’ve covered the bill in depth before but it now goes on to the Governor for his signature.  The bill, if signed, would become effective October 1, 2017.
  • The House also passed a measure last night (H.B. 6907) that exempts certain professional drivers from coverage under the state’s unemployment law.. The exemption applies to drivers under a contract with another party if the driver meets certain conditions. The measure moves to the Senate but given the backlog of bills today, final passage is definitely unclear.
  • The Senate last night passed a measure (H.B. 7132) that streamlines procedures for filing workers compensation claims.  Currently, the law generally requires private-sector employees seeking workers’ compensation benefits to submit a written notice of claim for compensation to either a workers’ compensation commissioner or their employer’s last known residence or place of business. This bill requires private-sector employees who mail the notice to their employer to do so by certified mail. It also allows employers, except the state and municipalities, to post a copy of where employees must send the notice (presumably a specific address). The posting must be in a workplace location where other labor law posters required by the labor department are prominently displayed.  Under the bill, employers who opt to post such an address must also forward it to the Workers’ Compensation Commission, which must post the address on its website. Employers are responsible for verifying that the information posted at the workplace location is consistent with the information posted on the commission’s website.By law, within 28 days after receiving an employee’s written notice of claim, an employer must either (1) file a notice contesting liability with the compensation commissioner or (2) begin paying workers’ compensation benefits to the injured employee (and retain the ability to contest the claim for up to a year). Employers who do neither of these within 28 days of receiving the notice are conclusively presumed to have accepted the claim’s compensability. Under the bill, if an employer posts an address where employees must send a notice of claim, the countdown to the 28-day deadline begins on the date that the employer receives the notice at the posted address.The bill now moves to the Governor for his review and approval.
  • The General Assembly is also continuing to review a possible Paid Family and Medical Leave insurance scheme.  This bill (S.B. 1) is definitely one to watch over the next day and over any special session as well.
  • Senate Bill 929 would expand whistleblower protections under 31-51m. It has passed the Senate and is awaiting a vote in the House.  Existing law prohibits employers from discharging, disciplining, or otherwise penalizing an employee for certain whistleblowing activities, including reporting suspected illegal conduct to a public body.  This bill additionally prohibits employers from taking such actions against an employee for objecting or refusing to participate in an activity that the employee reasonably believes is illegal. Specifically, it applies to such beliefs about violations or suspected violations of state or federal laws or regulations, municipal ordinances or regulations, or court orders. The bill also (1) extends the time an employee has to file such a lawsuit and (2) adds to the possible remedies available to employees, including punitive damages in certain circumstances.

That seems to be it so far. A lot can change though today and employers should continue to be mindful of the shifting landscape. Even bills that appear “mostly dead” sometimes come back to life at the end — and particularly in special session as well. So stay tuned.

capitoldasIt’s a challenge for employers to keep up with changes to employment laws. What’s the current status? What do I need to change?

So, here are four quick things you can look at right now to ensure that you are up to compliance in Connecticut.

  1. Connecticut increased the minimum wage effective January 1, 2017.  It’s now up to $10.10 per hour. Are all your employees now at that minimum wage?
  2. Connecticut’s new Fair Change Employment Law went into effect January 1, 2017.  That means that most employers are not allowed to ask about a prospective employee’s prior arrests, criminal charges or convictions on an initial employment application unless the employer is required to do so by state or federal law, or a bond is required for the position for which the applicant is seeking.  When did you last update your employment application? 
  3. Last summer, Connecticut updated it’s state family & medical leave law to mirror federal FMLA law that allows an employee to take a leave for a “qualifying exigency”.  Recall too that Connecticut allows employees to take leave in order to serve as an organ or bone marrow donor. When did you last update your FMLA policy?
  4. Effective October 1, 2016, employers may now offer the use of payroll cards to deliver wages so long as the employee “voluntary and express authorizes” the payment of wages by that method and the employer provides a “clear and conspicuous notice” to employees about the use of it.  Have you updated your notices and have your received authorizations from your employees on the use of payroll cards?

 

capitoldasThe Connecticut General Assembly is back in session and with significant budget deficits looming, it’s not going to be an easy year for legislators.

From a labor and employment law session, once again it will be interesting to see what will be seriously considered.

A Bloomberg Law article late last week suggested that Democrats in several states, including Connecticut, are planning bills to try to replicate the federal overtime-pay overhaul that has been held up in federal court.   Without citing names, the article states:

Democrats in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Wisconsin and Michigan said they plan to introduce bills modeled on Obama’s reform, which would have made millions more white-collar workers eligible for overtime.

A cursory look at the Bill Record book for the Labor & Public Employees committee fails to show such a bill yet, but it’s still early. At this point in the legislative cycle, only early “proposed” bills are officially on record. That, of course, doesn’t mean that other draft bills aren’t being floated out there.

So among the proposed bills, what else is out there being considered for 2017?

  • As expected, a paid family & medical leave bill is definitely on the table now, after being looked at for the last 18 months or so.  Indeed, it is titled “Proposed Senate Bill No. 1″ and is co-sponsored by several senators.  Having a bill marked as “One” indicates that this will be a priority in the current session.  The details, however, are still being worked on.
  • Another bill that already has garnered widespread support including from the House leadership is Proposed House Bill 5591.   While again, the details are still forthcoming, the bill would “require employers, including the state and political subdivisions, to provide equal pay to employees in the same workplace who perform comparable duties.”  What’s still unknown is why this is being sought, just 2 years after another pay equity bill titled “An Act on Pay Equity and Fairness” was passed. Time will tell, but expect to see more on this bill soon.
  • Another bill concerning “Various Pay Equity and Fairness Matters” (not to be confused with prior bills) has also been proposed by new Representative Derek Slap from West Hartford.  That bill would mirror some other states that have recently passed bills further limiting what prospective employers can ask applicants. Specifically, this Proposed House Bill 5210 would:

(1) Prohibit employers from asking a prospective employee’s wage and salary history before an employment offer with compensation has been negotiated, provided prospective employees may volunteer information on their wage and salary history,

(2) Prohibit employers from using an employee’s previous wage or salary history as a defense in an equal pay lawsuit,

(3) Permit an employer to have an affirmative defense in an equal pay lawsuit if it can demonstrate that, within three years prior to commencement of the lawsuit, the employer completed a good faith self-evaluation of its pay practices and can demonstrate that reasonable progress has been made towards eliminating gender-based wage differentials, and

(4) Protect seniority pay differentials from adverse adjustments for time spent on leave due to pregnancy-related conditions or protected parental, family and medical leave.

Other proposed bills can be found here including an increase in the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

One important note: The state Senate has now split 18-18 among Democrats and Republicans.  Thus, I think it’s fair to expect that there will be less laws that impact employers than in year’s past.  The CBIA has an update from a business perspective here.

depressOver the years, one of my favorite employment law blogs has been Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights.  He really takes a deep dive into the subject and I’ve had the opportunity over the years to exchange ideas with Jeff.

Recently, he alerted me to a new federal court decision in Connecticut that may have a significant impact for employers struggling with FMLA claims.

Rather than duplicate his post, I’m going to suggest reading it now.

The TL;DR note is that the issue he tackles is whether an employer can ask for more information from a medical specialist rather than some vague notes from the primary care physician filling out a FMLA certification form.  In some circumstances, the answer is now “yes”.

The case, Bento v. City of Milford, can be downloaded here.

The court was asked to look at two issues:

First on the initial FMLA certification — was the employer justified in asking for more specific information from a specialist? The court said that because the physician referenced a review from a psychologist, the employer was justified in following up with the specialist to clear up confusion that the physician’s notes brought up.

Second, when the employee wanted to come back to work, the employer was justified in delaying her return to get a more specific fitness for duty certification.  As Jeff notes: A fitness-for-duty certification can seek two things: “1) Confirm that the employee is able to resume work; and 2)Specifically address the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the employee’s job.”  A vague note that the employee could return to work was not enough, the court said.

Rather “the employer has the right to insist that the health care provider review the job description for the position and confirm that the employee can perform those job duties.”

 

The decision is a big win for employers in Connecticut who struggle with FMLA notes that are vague and gives some teeth to the notion that employers can push back.  This is particularly true, I sense, in situations where employees provide a note that they need leave for “job stress”.  Employers — in consulting with employment counsel — should consider seeking more information in response to ambiguity when it comes to FMLA certifications or return to work notes.

I thank Jeff for his tip to this important case.

starrMy colleague Gary Starr sits next to my office and sometimes we bounce ideas off each other. One of the things we were talking about recently was a new case that discussed an employer’s obligations to enter into the interactive process.  

This often comes up in ADA cases where the employee may need a reasonable accommodation.  As we discuss in this joint post below, there are no magic words needed — and sometimes no words needed at all.  

Both federal law (ADA) and state law (CFEPA) require employees and management to meet and discuss what might be a reasonable accommodation when an employee with a disability seeks an accommodation.

This interactive process was envisioned as a way to work collaboratively to find a reasonable accommodation.  Certainly when an employee asks for an accommodation, an employer must engage in the process.

But here are a few questions to ponder:

  • What should happen when the employee does not quite use the right words to start the process?
  • Can the employer be liable for failing to engage in the interactive process after terminating an employee who has not been accommodated?
  • While there are no magic words that must be uttered to start the interactive process,  what will trigger the obligation?

A recent federal appeals court case (Kowitz v. Trinity Health) discussed this situation, where the employer apparently ignored the signs requiring it to explore possible accommodations.  As a result, the employee will get her day in court.

The basic facts:

  • A respiratory therapist was diagnosed with a degenerative disease.
  • She requested and was granted time off for surgery under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  After she exhausted her FMLA leave, she returned to work with restrictions.
  • During her leave, management reminded the department’s employees that they needed to submit proof of their certification in CPR, an essential job function.  Employees who needed to get recertified were required to say when they were going to take the course and the written and physical tests.
  • Having discussed the matter with her doctor, the therapist left a voice mail message for her supervisor that she would take the course and the written exam, but needed to complete 4 more months of physical therapy before she could do the physical portion of the test.
  • The next day, the respiratory therapist was terminated because  she was unable to perform CPR.

She sued, claiming that her employer did not engage in the interactive process.  The court found that while the therapist did not expressly ask for an accommodation, she provided sufficient information to start discussions.

The court pointed out that the employer was aware of the disability.  It approved the FMLA leave.  It received the Return to Work form from her doctor with work restrictions.  And there was evidence that the employee had told her supervisor about her problems completing the CPR certification and she told her supervisor about her doctor appointments and her continuing pain.

What’s the Takeaway?

This decision warns employers that if you know about an employee’s medical limitations, that knowledge may be sufficient to trigger the informal interactive process.

While it is not clear whether other courts will adopt this liberal approach, which is better in the long run: Sitting down with the employee or litigating?

It is important to remember that not all requests for an accommodation are reasonable.  The expense of a requested accommodation may not be reasonable; what the employer offers may be reasonable, even if rejected by the employee; and there may not be a solution to the situation.

But engaging in the process makes much more sense than trying to convince a judge or jury that you were too busy to meet for an hour or so and were unwilling to listen to possible ways to have the employee be productive and contribute to the company.

As Connecticut employers of a certain size know, Connecticut implemented Paid Sick Leave recently which affords employees up to five days off a year.   Now, federal contractors (including those in Connecticut) have another layer to deal with. As my colleague Ashley Marshall explains below, paid sick leave will now be a requirement later this year.  Thanks too to my partner Gary Starr who helped pull this together today on short notice.

marshall If we travel back in time to September 2015, President Obama signed Executive Order 13706 (EO) which established a mandate on federal contractors to give their employees up to 56 hours (7 days) of paid sick leave each year.

Today, the Secretary of Labor has issued regulations to implement President Obama’s Executive Order that established a mandate on federal contractors to give their employees up to 56 hours (7 days) of paid sick leave each year.  The regulation goes into effect on November 29, 2016.

Here are some of the highlights:

  1. The Final Rule covers new contracts and replacements for expiring contracts with the fdoctorederal government that result from solicitations on or after January 1, 2017.
  2. Employees will accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked on or in connection with a covered federal contract.
  3. Paid sick leave is capped at 56 hours (7 days) in a year.
  4. Employees may use paid sick leave for their own illnesses or other health care needs, for the care of a loved one who is ill, for preventive health care for themselves or a loved one, for purposes resulting from being the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or to assist a loved one who is such a victim.
  5. The Final Rule allows for coordination with existing paid time off policies and labor agreements
  6. Employers may require that employees using paid sick leave provide certification from a health care provider of the employee’s need for leave if they use 3 or more days of leave consecutively.

A few other tidbits:

  • Whether an employee has to work a certain number of hours  for coverage depends on whether they work “on” a covered contract or “in connection” with a covered contract.
  • Employees that work “on” a covered contract are those that are performing the specific services called for by the contract. They are covered, regardless of the number of hours worked in a year and regardless of whether they are full or part time.
  • Employees that work “in connection” with a covered contract are  those that perform work activities that are necessary to the performance of the contract, but are not directly engaged in the specific services called for in the contract.  An employee who spends less than 20% of his or her hours working “in connection” with a covered contract in a particular workweek is not covered.

As with many new benefits, employees may try to take advantage of the new regulation, particularly since no medical excuse needs to be provided until the employee is out of work 3 or more days.  Employers are going to need to be vigilant against abuse.

The Final Rule will be published in the Federal Register September 30, 2016, and will go into effect exactly 60 days after its publication. More information can be found on the U.S. Department of Labor’s website in its Fact Sheet and Overview.

monkeyIn yesterday’s post, I talked about some of the reasons why an employee’s lawsuit against his or her employer was destined for failure.

But employers, I’m afraid you’re not off the hook that easily. This post is for any employer that just got sued or threatened with suit.

Maybe that lawsuit isn’t so frivolous after all.

Wait a second! You said yesterday that ‘Odds are, you probably weren’t discriminated against’!”  

Ah, but isn’t that rub? Odds. Statistics.  Yes, some (many?) lawsuits brought by employees are losing propositions. But some are not.

Here are some things I tell clients or prospective clients when I see a lawsuit filed or threatened as to why they should take the lawsuit seriously.

1. That frivolous lawsuit is still going to cost you thousands (if not tens of thousands) to defend.  But I thought you said this post was about non-frivolous lawsuits?  True. But for my first point, that’s beside the point entirely.  Whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not, the system of justice through our courts and administrative agencies moves slowly and with some cautiousness.  Even the frivolous ones need to be defended.  Court filings need to be, well, filed.  And court conferences need to be attended.  So your first point always is to recognize that all employment law cases have a cost associated with them.

And as such, all cases have what we call a “nuisance” value as well.  That is — you are going to spend X amount of dollars defending the lawsuit.  It may be cheaper to just pay a certain amount to avoid the cost of defense.  Now, there are business reasons why you won’t want to do so in all or even many cases, but the employer who fails to recognize the nuisance value of the case is destined to be disappointed in the long run.

It’s a bit of hyperbole to say that any person can sue anyone at any time for any reason. But not that much.  Lawsuits are a part of doing business.  Frivolous or not, you will still have spend money to defend your decision. Be prepared for this eventuality when making your employment decisions and deciding whether or not to offer severance in exchange for a release.

2. “At Will” Employment Is a Misnomer.   In Connecticut, the default employment relationship between an employer and employee is “at-will”.  As many offer letters suggest, that means either the employer or employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time for any reason or no reason at all.  And so, I sometimes hear employers exclaiming “Connecticut is at-will! We should be able to just fire them for any reason!  How can they still sue?

Continue Reading Maybe That Lawsuit Brought By Your Employee Isn’t So Frivolous

nurseSo, back in January, I penned a post titled “Can You Fire an Employee Who Has Exhausted FMLA Leave?”

As if to respond, the EEOC yesterday released guidance that basically answers: Not necessarily, because it might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

And that is the crux of the issue for employers.

Before I go further, let’s remember one thing: The ADA is a statute that demands flexibility.  It requires that employers provide “reasonable accommodations” to employees to enable them to perform the essential functions of their job.

The EEOC’s guidance tries to explain this flexibility in various ways.  Sometimes it clarifies the situation; but in other ways, the guidance only serves to create more questions for employers to ponder.

The guidance is broken down into six key areas.

1. Equal Access to Leave Under an Employer’s Leave Policy. This is fairly straightforward; the same leaves of absence rules applicable to employees without disabilities should be applied to those with disabilities.

2. Granting Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation. The EEOC’s continues to argue that an employer must consider providing unpaid leave to an employee with a disability as a reasonable accommodation if the employee requires it, and so long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer.

3. Leave and the Interactive Process Generally.  The EEOC reminds employers that when an employee requests an accommodation such as leave (and note: such requests rarely come in a neat fashion like “I hereby invoke my rights under the ADA for a reasonable accommodation”), the employer should promptly engage in an “interactive process” with the employee.  This process should focus on the specific reasons the employee needs leave, whether the leave will be a block of time or intermittent, and when the need for leave will end. Even under this instance, the employer may consider the “undue hardship” the leave may have on the workplace.

4. Maximum Leave Policies. Although employers are allowed to have leave policies that establish the maximum amount of leave an employer will provide or permit, the EEOC argues that employers may have to grant leave beyond this amount as a reasonable accommodation to employees who require it because of a disability, unless the employer can show that doing so will cause an undue hardship.  Thus, policies with hard caps may violate the ADA.

5. Return to Work and Reasonable Accommodation (Including Reassignment).  In this section, the EEOC argues that employers should avoid “100% Healed” policies, which require that an employee be fully recovered before returning to work.  A temporary transfer to a vacant position might allow the employee to return earlier while the employee continues to heal, for example.  Again, the notion of a “reasonable accommodation” and flexibility controls.

6. Undue Hardship. For employers, this may be the last safeguard and one that might need to be used more.  For example, an employer might argue that the duration and frequency of the leave, and the impact on the employer’s business, make such a leave too difficult under the circumstances.  A big plus for employers, however is that an “indefinite leave” — meaning an employee cannot say whether or when she will be able to return to work at all — “will constitute an undue hardship”.  But overall, employers will need to examine such requests on a case-by-case basis.

Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer Law Blog suggests in his post today that this guidance “goes a long way to answering many of the questions employers will have.”  I respectfully disagree with Jon.  The EEOC’s guidance is an aggressive approach to the law that has yet to be fully tested by the courts.  Rather than create clarity, the guidance pushes the boundaries as to what employers should do. And CT’s anti-discrimination laws have their own requirements which may (or may not) mirror all of the ADA’s requirements.

For example, if an employee cannot do the essential functions of the job he or she was hired for with a reasonable accommodation, why is it reasonable to assign them permanently to another job?

That’s not to say that employers should turn a blind eye to those with disabilities or those in need to some extra time in some circumstances. I’m not advocating that at all; being understanding of your employees is vital being a good employer. And there will be instances where employers will do all that it can to keep a valued employee.

But I worry about the situations in which an employee is abusing leave; there has to be an end point. A point at which the employer can legitimately say “enough is enough.”

And with the EEOC’s guidance, that end point remains as muddy as ever.