This week, my colleague Sarah Westby and I published a detailed look at the new legal cannabis law in Connecticut and what it means for employers. I’m not going to duplicate the post here but strongly encourage you to read it.
One thing that didn’t make it in the post was strange provision found in
Three years ago, I floated the idea that perhaps an agency could come up with a modest “amnesty” program that would give employers a chance to get into compliance with FLSA laws, without facing the draconian consequences such an admission might entail.
Now, late yesterday, the United States Department of Labor announced its own pilot
My colleagues at Shipman & Goodwin have, for a lot longer than I have been doing this blog, have been producing the Employment Law Letter recapping some stories you might have missed over each quarter or so.
This week, a new newsletter was released and it touches on several topics of interest.
.jpg)
With the campaign for U.S. Senate winding up in Connecticut soon, there’s been lots of chatter about Linda McMahon’s role with the WWE.
I’ll leave it for others to analyze political issues arising from her relationship with the WWE, if any, but her relationship with the company provides an interesting backdrop to talk about
The WWE has filed its reply brief (download here) in further support of its motion to dismiss yesterday contending that three former wrestlers "cannot escape the clear language of the booking contracts". For background on the case involving "Raven" and two othe
r former wrestlers, click here.
The brief is filled with lots of "smackdowns" (to borrow a wrestling phrase) chiding
Many weeks after the WWE filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by three former WWE wrestlers ("Raven" and "Kanyon" and others — otherwise known as Scott Levy, Chris Klucsartis and Michael Sanders ), the wrestlers have fired back filing their papers opposing WWE’s motion. (For full coverage of this lawsuit, click here.)
The