The short session of the Connecticut General Assembly is set to begin on February 5, 2014.

But the jockeying for items to get on the agenda is well under way. The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is circulating a proposed bill that would followup on a failed bill from last year’s term.

I previously discussed this proposal in a post last May.

At the time, the proposed bill was thought to be close to passage, but time ran out in the session before it could be picked up.  Earlier versions the bill proved quite troublesome; this latest version still has issues that haven’t been addressed and it’s important for employers to speak up now before the changes are put into place.

So what are some of the changes this bill would bring?

Changes to “Mental Disability”

The bill expands the definition of a “mental disability” to not only “mental disorders, as defined in the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’”, but also to including having “a record of or regarding a person as having one or more such disorders”.

Put aside, for the moment whether including everything in the new DSM5 is worthwhile. The more troubling issue is that the proposed law would continue to cover “regarded as” claims for mental disabilities. The references to a “past history” of mental disability in existing law being removed by this bill are less significant because a “record” of disability would now be covered.

Why is that problematic? Becaues that the definition is inconsistent with how a “physical” disability is treated; where is the reference to being “regarded” as having a physical disability?

Rather than continue to treat mental and physical disabilities as distinct from each other, the legislature should take its cues from the ADA and match its definitions accordingly.  Otherwise, we’ll continue to have three different standards to analyze disability claims — one for ADA claims, and two for state disability-related claims.Continue Reading Legislative Preview: Will the CHRO Bill Get Passed This Year?

The dust is still settling from the mad dash that is the end of the Connecticut General Assembly session. 

I’ll have more in the upcoming days as events warrant, but here’s a quick look at a few items that I’ve been tracking in recent weeks. 

The Connecticut General Assembly is back at work so it’s time to take a quick peek to see what’s percolating.

2013 Legislative Session Begins

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association highlighted the “captive audience” bill as bill that is resurfacing, even though the Attorney General has previously raised doubts about

As the legislative session winds down, there’s one big issue still alive that has been passing mostly under the radar of the mainstream press.  (To the CBIA’s credit, they’ve been tracking this bill for a while.)

Under current law, an employee has the right to inspect and receive a copy of his or her personnel

The General Assembly is always full of surprises.    It’s the busy season for the Connecticut legislature and a number of employment-law related proposals are still “alive”. 

(I use “alive” in the generic sense because the bills have merely passed committee; whether they will end up getting voted on is an entirely different question. For further

And all of a sudden, things just got very busy at the Connecticut General Assembly.

On Tuesday, several labor & employment law bills are up for discussion and debate at a public hearing scheduled at 2 p.m. (details here).  One of the bills is the newest hot topic — the House version of the

Two bills were introduced in the Connecticut legislature last week that would ban discrimination against individuals who are unemployed. Section 8 of Senate Bill 1 and Senate Bill 79 are identical in their provisions.  They would apply to nearly all employers in the state.   

The proposals would amend Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-60(a)(6) to prohibit