Back in May 2012, I wrote this about a book that was making its way around various book clubs that was dubbed by The New York Times as “Mommy Porn”.
[H]aving someone read [Fifty Shades of Grey] alone during a lunch break, by itself, is probably not enough to establish a sexual harassment claim. The
There are a few words in our language that still have the ability to shock and hurt others. The N-word is one of them.
(I’ll use it sparingly here but note that courts use the actual language in court opinions too; for courts, accuracy is important.)
Frankly, it’s not a word that pops up in
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?
A case out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (of which, Connecticut is part of) addresses an interesting question:
When a jury finds that sexual harassment has been perpetuated by a single employee, is injunctive (non-monetary) relief required to be issued by the District Court?
The EEOC argued yes and argued that remedies such as preventing the harassing employee from returning to the workplace were appropriate.
The Second Circuit agreed in part, saying that ordinarily a termination of a lone harasser should be enough. But the court said that given the egrigious facts of this particular case, something more should’ve been done to protect the female employees from potential future harassment.
The case, EEOC v. KarenKim, Inc. (d/b/a Paul’s Big M Grocery), can be downloaded here.
There’s a lot of facts to the case, but this summary, by the Outten & Golden Employment Law Blog, captures some of the salient points:
KarenKim is a grocery store whose employees largely consist of teenage female employees. The company is owned and managed by Karen Connors. In 2001, she hired Allen Manwaring as the store manager. In 2006, Connors and Manwaring became romantically involved and had a son together.
At trial, a number of current and former employees testified about Manwaring’s sexual harassment of the female employees, which consisted of verbal and physical harassment. Some of his verbal comments included making comments of a sexual nature to employees and compliments about parts of their body. He told one employee that if he was her boyfriend, he would never “let her out of his sheets” and that “if he was 10 years younger, he would be on top of her.” He also physically harassed the women by touching and massaging them in inappropriate ways and on a daily basis. He would brush up against them to deliberately touch their breasts, put his crotch against their buttocks, breath on their necks, hug them, and squeeze their hips.
Oy.Continue Reading What Remedy Is Appropriate When a Jury Concludes Sexual Harassment Occurred?
Years ago, it was believed that summary judgment motions by employers should be rarely granted.
And yet, judges in Connecticut district court keep granting these motions. A recent federal court case in Connecticut is the latest example of how courts are using their power to weed out cases before they reach a jury.
Is someone bringing “Mommy Porn” (The New York Times words, not mine) into the workplace?
Yes, THAT book, 50 Shades of Grey, has been making the rounds.
And chances are, with Memorial Day weekend upon us, more than a few people will be bringing it to
The Connecticut Supreme Court, in a decision that will be officially released on May 15, 2012, today ruled unanimously that Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws implicitly create a claim for hostile work environment based on an employee’s sexual orientation. The state’s anti-discrimination laws have long been interpreted to bar a hostile work environment based on gender,
It’s not very often that the Connecticut Supreme Court considers employment law issues.
But today, two notable cases are being argued in front of the court. Both could have an impact on employers in the state.
In Patino v. Birken Manufacturing, the court is being
Lately, I’ve been doing quite a few presentations on social media, including, most recently, one for a school district.
One of the trickiest questions that comes up: Is it "legal" to "friend" a subordinate in the workplace? Or for teachers, is it "legal" to "friend" a student?
(I use the term "friend" to be the
On Friday, I’ll be speaking to a group of local high school and middle school teachers about some best practices on the use of technology in the workplace.
Among the central messages of the presentation? No guideline can be a substitute for using good judgment and common sense.
With teachers, that message is