Earlier this week, I wrote about the perception among some that the CHRO has been retaining more cases for investigation by letting more cases through the Merit Assessment Review.  These cases that used to be dismissed — mainly “frivolous” ones as  I’ve collectively termed them — mean more headaches for employers who have to spend time and money defending against them.

(To simplify the blog post for readers, I labelled all these cases that had been dismissed at MAR together as “frivolous” even though there are technically different reasons why the CHRO may dismiss a case on Merit Assessment Review, including that there is “no reasonable possibility” that an investigation will lead to a reasonable cause finding of discrimination. )

In response to my blog post, CHRO Principal Attorney Charles Krich crafted a reply. While it is attached to the original blog post, I thought it notable enough that it warranted its own blog post.   While he indicated that there were no statistics yet available, he “would not be surprised if fewer cases are being dismissed for no reasonable possibility” under the Merit Assessment Review.

Here’s his reply in full (my further comments are below):
Continue Reading CHRO Attorney Agrees Emphasis at Agency “Has Shifted From MAR to Mediation”

State Law Changes To CHRO

As I’ve noted before, the CHRO procedures were changed effective October 1, 2011.  One question that we had at the time was whether the CHRO would be retaining more discrimination claims by employees for investigation — getting past the Merit Assessment Review stage.

Previously,

Consider this scenario.

An administrative assistant who’s been working solidly for the company for two years comes to you, as an HR manager, and says she’s been harassed by a manager over her looks. 

You need to talk with manager about the allegations.

What do you do? 

That’s the scenario posed in a recent article posted

On Friday, the Second Circuit held that a company’s failure to investigate an in-house race discrimination complaint is not an "adverse employment action" that can subject.  (H/T Wait a Second).

The case, Fincher v. Depository Trust (download here), provides some much needed guidance on what rises to the level of an action that an

"Progressive Discipline" is a policy or practice that, over the years, has fallen out of favor with some employers.

What is it? It’s a practice — found also in some collective bargaining agreements — that typically provides a multi-step disciplinary process for many employment policy violations: a verbal warning, a written warning, a suspension, and

Reading the Second Circuit’s decision in Duch v. Jakubek (decided on Friday, December 4th), a distinct image came to mind: The ostrich who sticks its head in the sand.

Why the ostrich? Because, the Duch case discusses what to do with a supervisor who purposely ignores evidence of sexual harassment.  And the court concludes that

Last week, the Connecticut House approved House Bill 5521 (H.B. 5521), which would bar Connecticut employers from using credit reports in their employment decisions such as hiring and firing. 

You can download the bill’s text here

The bill’s main provisions would prohibit employers from asking employees or prospective employee to consent to the