Oh Halloween.
You have a tendency to make employment lawyers busy.
For instance, there was that time when an employee made comments about a co-worker “taking a girlfriend dressed as a 747 to a Halloween party and bringing her in for a landing” when the co-worker was gay and had no girlfriend. Harassment? (Hansen
Suppose a national origin discrimination case goes to a jury trial (I know we’re not having jury trials during this pandemic, but humor me).
The jury comes back with a verdict finding for the Plaintiff-employee. But it awards the Plaintiff just one dollar. Is this a victory?
Before you answer, you should know this happens
One of the items I talk about in a sexual harassment prevention training is that people’s perception of what sexual harassment is, may differ from how a court defines it.
Suppose I told you that the owner of a small company that you worked at and reported to made inappropriate comments in discussing the size
Over the weekend, I finished binge-watching Apple TV+’s The Morning Show and had two immediate reactions.
First off, OMG these people are not social-distancing. The workplace is so crowded! WHERE ARE THEIR MASKS?
But after that, I was impressed that the show presented a fairly complicated (at least for a drama) presentation of the
The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities recently announced that it will, upon request, extend the deadline for employers to provide sexual harassment prevention training by 90 days for new employees.
The deadline to complete such training is six months after their start date, absent an extension.
But employers should beware; the announcement has three
This blog has tried to stay apolitical throughout its 12+ years so I’m not going to start talking politics now.
But, over the last week, the issue of confidentiality provisions and non disparagement clauses in settlement agreements of discrimination claims has moved front and center of the political debate between Senator Elizabeth Warren and Michael
It’s been far too long since our last installment from March 2019, but my ongoing dialogue with Nina Pirrotti, a prominent plaintiff’s-side employment law attorney, is back. In this post, we talked about the highlights from 2019 with a sneak peek at 2020. My thanks to Nina for her contributions. You can find her firm’s blog posts here as well.
Dan: Nina! Good to talk with you again here. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving; mine was full of turkey, stuffing and even skiing. But we have so much to talk about. It seems that 2019 has been a busy year in employment law which is kind of surprising because the economy keeps rolling on. I thought we’d look back on 2019 and look ahead to 2020.
From my perspective, it’s tough trying to recap 2019 in just one or two paragraphs. The most obviously trendline to me sees to be that the #metoo movement shows no signs of abating or of a backlash. And for people like both you and me who care about social justice, this is a great thing. Real change to root out sexual harassment has been long overdue. We’re now going to see training mandated at basically all workplaces and other changes. But will it be enough or will it stall out in 2020?
Paid FMLA is obviously another big topic but we’re really not going to see those changes until at least 2021. What else stands out to you from this past year?
Nina: A warm hello to one of my favorite sparring partners. It is so great to rekindle our feisty exchanges!
Well, Dan, as you may have guessed from the two articles I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune in October 2018 and mid-March 2019, the critical issues raised by the #MeToo movement continue to loom large for me this year.
While we have on rare (and much publicized) occasions, seen the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, (See e.g. “’Survivor’ Contestants Apologize After #Me Too” Backlash”), the movement has largely been a force for healthy, overdue change.
Continue Reading The Dialogue: A Busy Year in Employment Law in 2019 with a Look Ahead to 2020
If you’re a Connecticut employer, new requirements regarding training and posting — as well as changes to the underlying anti-discrimination law — should be a must-read.
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, the General Assembly passed a series of revisions to Senate Bill 3, which itself passed over the weekend. Together, these series of changes (S.B. 1111 and S.B. 3) will impact employers of all sizes and cases at the CHRO.
In essence, you had a bill that was amended after it already passed. Rather than get into what was in the original bill vs. final bill, I thought it might be helpful just to recap what is in the final version of the bills, as combined.
Governor Lamont is expected to sign these bills in the next week or so.
To be clear, this recap should not be a substitute for legal advice and this recap only addresses some of the most relevant private employer provisions; there’s some provisions in there regarding EEO officers for state agencies that are beyond the scope of this recap. Credit should also be given to the state’s OLR Bill Analysis as well.
TRAINING
Currently, employers with at least 50 employees are required to give their supervisors two hours of training on state and federal sexual harassment laws and remedies.
The new law will require employers of all sizes to give training to supervisors by October 1, 2020 (or within six months of their assumption of supervisory duties, after that time).
For employers with 3 or more employees, the training must also be given to all other employees also by October 1, 2020 (or within six months of hire, after that time.)
In both instances, the training must be updated every ten years by employers, though it doesn’t seem to be the same two hours — just a “supplemental” update. Also, any employee (including supervisor) trained since October 1, 2018 is exempt from being “retrained” a second time.
The bill requires CHRO to develop a free online training video or other interactive method. If that’s done on time, employers will have to give the training within six months of an employee’s start date.
If employers don’t provide training, it will now be a “discriminatory practice” that may allow employees to bring an action in the CHRO (or court). The fine for failing to provide training will be $750.
NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES
The new law (piggybacking on existing law which requires a notice be posted regarding sexual harassment) will require employers of three or more employees to send a copy of this to employees via e-mail within 3 months of hire — so long as the employee has an e-mail address (company-provided or personal). The subject line should be titled “Sexual Harassment Policy” or words very similar to that effect. If the employer doesn’t give employees an e-mail address, the information must be included on its website. If the CHRO develops something on their own, the employer can just provide this link.
The fine for failing to do so will be $750 as well.
CORRECTIVE ACTION IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
When an employer takes prompt remedial action in response to a claim of sexual harassment, the new law requires that the employer can only modify the target’s condition of employment upon agreement in writing from the employee. That means, transferring an employee to a different department can only be done upon written consent.
BUT, even if the employer did not obtain the written consent, the bill still allows the CHRO to find that the employer’s corrective action was reasonable and not “to the detriment” to the complainant, based on the evidence.
TIMEFRAME FOR FILING DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT CLAIMS
Continue Reading The Definitive Employer Guide to Connecticut’s New Anti-Sexual Harassment Law
The so-called “Time’s Up” bill that would make major changes to the sexual harassment and discrimination laws in the state — including adding new training requirements — went through final passage at the House on Saturday. But don’t start changing your policies just yet.
Senate Bill 3, titled “Combatting Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment” has been modified since first introduced and passed the Senate late last week. Despite the title, the bill would impact every discrimination case filed in the state and would make significant changes to the sexual harassment prevention training requirements.