Lost sometimes amid all the aspects of discrimination cases are the technical requirements that still must be shown in order for a discrimination claim to proceed.
For example, Title VII applies only to employers with 15 or more employees each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks (But note that there may
Earlier this month, I posted on a bill pending before the Connecticut General Assembly that would have changed the statute of limitations for filing employment discrimination claims and allowed a Complainant to ask for a release of jurisdiction of the CHRO as soon as possible.
This week, the Labor & Public Employee Committee approved of
Just when you think you’ve seen it all, another case comes around to prove that theory incorrect.
The latest example is Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges (download here), a Connecticut Appellate Court decision officially released today. In the case, an employee who claimed he was not promoted in retaliation for earlier
To bring state law employment discrimination claims to court, it is well-known that an employee has to first file the claim with the state agency responsible for investigating the claim (the CHRO) (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-101(a)). And most people believe that all the employee has to do is then wait for the CHRO
.jpg)
Lost in the shuffle of the election at Foxwoods last Saturday, was the one-paragraph concurrence issued last week denying Foxwoods’ Request for Review of the Regional Director’s decision mandating an election.
That concurrence by Member Peter Schaumber (who I met earlier this month), can be found in the Daily Labor Reports (subscription required). It paints a dismal picture for Foxwoods