The end of the General Assembly session is quickly coming upon us. So it’s a good time to look at what bills are still floating around in this year’s term and what’s dead (or mostly dead) for the year.
Here are just a few of the highlights:
The Connecticut Appellate Court, in a decision officially released next week, ruled that limousine drivers (“chauffeurs” if you must) are not entitled to be paid during their meal breaks.
If the case, Belgada v. Hy’s Livery Service, Inc. sounds familiar, that’s because I covered the lower court’s decision rejecting the drivers’ claims back in
So if last Tuesday’s post about the latest Connecticut Supreme Court decision on travel time was for employers, this post is for the ones who love the nuances of the law.
Dan Klau on his Appealingly Brief blog did a deep dive into the decision. And it wasn’t pretty.
The issue Dan highlights is this: The Connecticut Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) interpretation of its own regulation on travel time was first rejected because that interpretation had not been time-tested and was not the product of formal rule-making procedures.
But it was also rejected because the Court said the agency’s interpretation was also not reasonable. Dan questions this:
The DOL based its interpretation of its regulation on a 1995 opinion letter of the United States Department of Labor concerning travel time under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. The DOL expressly referenced that letter in a written guide it published, “A Guide to Wage and Workplace Standards.” (The link is to the 2014 revision, which appears to contain the same relevant text (see p. 38) at issue in Sarrazin.) The Court noted that Congress had rejected that position (on policy grounds) in 1996, “yet the department’s handbook inexplicably fails to acknowledge the questionable history of the 1995 opinion letter. . . .” This, according to the Court, is what made the DOL’s interpretation of its own regulation unreasonable.
I fail to see why the DOL’s statement that it interpreted its own regulation in accord with the 1995 opinion letter means that its interpretation is “unreasonable.” It seems to me that the question of reasonableness turns on the “fit” between the 1995 opinion letter and the text of the regulation, not on whether Congress, as a policy matter, disagreed with the 1995 opinion letter. Congress’s intentions are certainly relevant to federal law, but not to the reasonableness of the DOL’s interpretation of its own regulation. Employment lawyers, what say you?
There’s more, of course, to this story. It actually starts with a 1994 US Department of Labor Opinion letter which ruled that the time spent by an employee traveling from home to the first work assignment, or returning home from the last assignment, in an employer provided vehicle was similar to that of traveling between jobs during the day and therefore represented a principal activity, which must be compensated. No compensation would be required in cases where employees used their own personal vehicles.Continue Reading CTDOL’s Interpretation of Travel Time Not “Reasonable”; What Happens Next?
In a decision officially released today, the Connecticut Supreme Court (Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc.) has concluded that a plumbing foreman who carried his tools to and from work was not entitled to be compensated for his commuting time.
That’s about the only simple thing about the decision for employers.
The case addresses complicated and
From time to time, there are various questions that keep recurring in the labor & employment law area. One of them is in the area of travel time for non-exempt employees.
(For exempt employees, they get paid a fixed salary no matter how much time they work or travel.)
What if
So, by now (Friday morning), your preparations at your workplace should be in full swing. The latest forecasts this morning call for a landfall on Sunday somewhere along the Connecticut coast (perhaps Bridgeport) with hurricane impacts felt throughout the state.
Connecticut has set up some new resources since my post yesterday specifically on Hurricane Irene. The 8 a.m. update is posted here. It is frequently updated and also has a list of people to follow on Twitter.
But so far, it’s not easy to find out about all storm-related workplace laws in one place on the state’s website. (How about an update Department of Labor?)
While a blog post cannot address all of the FAQs that might come up, I thought it would be helpful to discuss a few wage/hour issues. As always, consult with your legal counsel/advisor on any specific issues you have and how these laws might apply to your workplace.
Reporting Time or Minimum Daily Earnings Guaranteed: Connecticut has a “reporting time” obligation (as do several of our neighboring states). It is contained in various regulations and applies to certain industries like the “mercantile trade”. You should already be aware of this law, but it has particular application in storm situations where people may not work full shifts.Continue Reading Hurricane Irene: “Reporting Time” Pay and Other Wage & Hour Issues for Employers