general assembly

Subscribe to general assembly via RSS

The short session of the Connecticut General Assembly is set to begin on February 5, 2014.

But the jockeying for items to get on the agenda is well under way. The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is circulating a proposed bill that would followup on a failed bill from last year’s term.

I previously discussed this proposal in a post last May.

At the time, the proposed bill was thought to be close to passage, but time ran out in the session before it could be picked up.  Earlier versions the bill proved quite troublesome; this latest version still has issues that haven’t been addressed and it’s important for employers to speak up now before the changes are put into place.

So what are some of the changes this bill would bring?

Changes to “Mental Disability”

The bill expands the definition of a “mental disability” to not only “mental disorders, as defined in the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’”, but also to including having “a record of or regarding a person as having one or more such disorders”.

Put aside, for the moment whether including everything in the new DSM5 is worthwhile. The more troubling issue is that the proposed law would continue to cover “regarded as” claims for mental disabilities. The references to a “past history” of mental disability in existing law being removed by this bill are less significant because a “record” of disability would now be covered.

Why is that problematic? Becaues that the definition is inconsistent with how a “physical” disability is treated; where is the reference to being “regarded” as having a physical disability?

Rather than continue to treat mental and physical disabilities as distinct from each other, the legislature should take its cues from the ADA and match its definitions accordingly.  Otherwise, we’ll continue to have three different standards to analyze disability claims — one for ADA claims, and two for state disability-related claims.Continue Reading Legislative Preview: Will the CHRO Bill Get Passed This Year?

The dust is still settling from the mad dash that is the end of the Connecticut General Assembly session. 

I’ll have more in the upcoming days as events warrant, but here’s a quick look at a few items that I’ve been tracking in recent weeks. 

…

The busy season for the Connecticut General Assembly is continuing with the final push for bills now underway.

Another bill that has been sneaking below the radar is House Bill 6658.  The bill, entitled “Employer Use of Noncompete Agreements”, has passed the Judiciary Committee, again without being referred to the Labor & Public Employee committee.  It is now pending before the House.

The bill would apply to all employers in the state and, for the first time, attempt to regulate all restrictive covenants or non-compete agreements through a law. (Previously only broadcast employees and security guards were covered by such restrictions.)  Only agreements created after October 1, 2013 would be covered.  Currently, the rules regarding such agreements have been developed through caselaw. 

The bill allows an employer to use such an agreement “if (1) the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business, and (2) prior to entering into the agreement or covenant, the employer provides the employee a reasonable period of time, of not less than ten business days, to seek legal advice relating to the terms of the agreement or covenant.”

It’s the second part of the bill that should concern employers because it goes far beyond current caselaw.  It would create a new cause of action (or way an employee can bring a lawsuit) for employers that violate the law and allow for the recovery of damages and attorneys fees.   

Any person who is aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages, together with court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court may limit the agreement or covenant to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was entered into and specifically enforce the agreement or covenant as limited.

Continue Reading Bill Targets Non-Compete Agreements But Would Also Create New Cause of Action

The Connecticut General Assembly’s Labor & Public Employee Committee today is considering drafting a proposed bill “to prevent current or potential employers from requesting or requiring that employees or potential employees provide passwords to their personal accounts as a condition of their employment.”

I won’t mince words. Proposed Senate Bill 159 is a…

The Connecticut General Assembly is back at work so it’s time to take a quick peek to see what’s percolating.

2013 Legislative Session Begins

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association highlighted the “captive audience” bill as bill that is resurfacing, even though the Attorney General has previously raised doubts about…

At a Sentencing Commssion hearing last week, former state lawmaker Ernie Newton — who was convicted in 2006 on corruption charges — urged commission members to address hiring discrimination against ex-felons, reports CT News Junkie.  There is no indication yet that they will do so, but his comments raised some eyebrows in the press.

Newton’s…