Earlier today, my firm held a webinar featuring a conversation with Heidi Lane of the Connecticut Department of Labor to talk about the upcoming changes to the state FMLA law effective January 1, 2022. My thanks to Ms. Lane for participating and sharing her insights.

You can view the entire webinar here (and I’d encourage

Over the last week, while many of us were trying to catch up on our stay-cations,  Congress passed and the President signed The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Applications Act.

It’s a 5,593-page appropriations bill so I’m going to guess that you haven’t read it.

Spoiler Alert: Neither have I.

But thankfully, my colleagues Jarad

Short post today: If you haven’t paid attention yet to the new state Paid Leave law, you’re out of time.

Here are three things to do right now:

  1. Register with the State Authority here. This is essential; all employers need to do this (presumably by January 1 for reasons I’ll explain next.)
  2. Figure out

Conneticut’s Travel Advisory Quarantine has been among the most confusing of the orders to arise from the pandemic.  No doubt that it was not intended to be that complicated.

But the last few weeks have had change after change made to the rules.  And then came the announcement last week that Rhode Island was on

Back in 2009, it was hard not to miss press coverage of the H1N1 virus.  In fact, I wrote a series of posts about how employers could prepare for a possible pandemic while still complying with employment laws.

Flash forward to now, and press reports are coming out daily about a new (novel) coronavirus

The laws regarding the protections owed to pregnant employees got far broader a few years back. In fact, the statutory provision prohibiting discrimination against pregnant employees has eleven key items. Rather than tackle them in separate posts, we’ll “super-size” this post to cover it all.

The main law is set forth at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-60(b)(7), though it is to be read in conjunction with the state’s broad anti-discrimination laws.

The key prohibitions state that it shall be a “discriminatory employment practice” for an employer (or the employer’s agent):

(A) To terminate a woman’s employment because of her pregnancy;

(B) to refuse to grant to that employee a reasonable leave of absence for disability resulting from her pregnancy;

(C) to deny to that employee, who is disabled as a result of pregnancy, any compensation to which she is entitled as a result of the accumulation of disability or leave benefits accrued pursuant to plans maintained by the employer;

(D) to fail or refuse to reinstate the employee to her original job or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other service credits upon her signifying her intent to return unless, in the case of a private employer, the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so;

(E) to limit, segregate or classify the employee in a way that would deprive her of employment opportunities due to her pregnancy;

(F) to discriminate against an employee or person seeking employment on the basis of her pregnancy in the terms or conditions of her employment;

(G) to fail or refuse to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee or person seeking employment due to her pregnancy, unless the employer can demonstrate that such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on such employer;
Continue Reading Employment Law Checklist Project: The 11 Things You Should Know About Pregnant Employees

Late Friday, the House passed the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act bill that passed the Senate earlier in May.  Governor Lamont has indicated that he will sign the measure. As such, big changes are coming, though some of the biggest changes are are still a few years off.

You can review the bill here

The Connecticut Appellate Court has an interesting case coming out officially early next week about an employer’s obligations to provide leave as a “reasonable accommodation”. You can download Barbabosa v. Board of Education here.

In it, the Court concludes that when attendance is an essential function of the job (as it will be for most

Lawyers love their cocktail chatter. And at a recent bar event, an interesting hypothetical came up among lawyers:

Suppose an employee is trying to get pregnant and is thinking about infertility treatments.  She’s considering time off for rest, and perhaps even for some in vitro fertilization (IVF) appointments. Perhaps even the doctor has said that