If you’ve been following this blog, you know I’ve been writing about the intersection of generative AI and employment litigation for a while now. I’ve talked about updating litigation hold policies to account for GenAI data, and I’ve urged employers to start requesting plaintiffs’ AI conversation histories in discovery.
Well, a ruling this past
![locplane[1]](https://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/files/2015/02/locplane1.jpg)
My colleague Chris Engler returns today with a recap of a new case in Connecticut that is of particular interest to employers who provide (or don’t provide) employment references.
We have all heard the admonition that “less is more.”
In an opinion that will be released next week, the Connecticut Appellate Court reminds us just how true that admonition is. In fact, the court’s decision gave one employer more than 400,000 reasons to heed the adage in the future.
The case, Nelson v. Tradewind Aviation, LLC, arose from a defamation lawsuit. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had worked as a pilot for Tradewind Aviation for a summer back in 2007. At the end of the season, the company needed to downsize for the winter. The plaintiff and others were laid off. His termination paperwork indicated that he had been laid off due to lack of work.
A few months later, the plaintiff was offered a job by another aviation company. In accordance with federal regulations, this company had the plaintiff request his employment records and other forms from Tradewind Aviation. Unlike the termination paperwork provided to him when he was laid off, on the new forms Tradewind Aviation’s representatives wrote that the plaintiff was involuntarily terminated and had had performance issues.
Tradewind Aviation then sent a letter to the prospective employer elaborating on these performance issues. The next day, it faxed over a copy of a drug test report (which concluded that plaintiff had not taken any drugs) along with a note that allegedly tied the supposed performance issues to drug use.
When the prospective employee rescinded its job offer to the plaintiff, he filed suit against Tradewind Aviation. He claimed that his former employer had engaged in defamation with malice. A few years later, a jury wholeheartedly agreed, to the tune of over $407,000 in damages.
Not surprisingly, the employer quickly appealed the verdict.Continue Reading Less May Be More When It Comes To Job References
Your former employee wants a job reference. Do you provide just the basics to his potential employers — namely, confirming dates of employment and his last position — or something more? And what are the legal risks of doing so?
The topic is
Last year, employers were taken aback when a New Jersey court ruled that an employee did have some expectation of privacy of e-mails she sent to her attorney using work computers. The case, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency became one of the most talked about cases of the year.
Last week, a California court came
Today, The New York Times reported on a privileged memo sent to Wal-Mart from its outside lawfirm back in 1995 that "found widespread gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take basic steps — like posting every job opening and creating specific goals to promote
In the midst of the financial crisis, another bill signed by President Bush has been, for the most part, overlooked, but warrants understanding by in-house counsel for employers and HR professionals that may assist with case management.
Specifically, S. 2450 and new Federal Rule of Evidence 502 give protections to employers (and others) against waiver of
For companies involved in employment discrimination litigation, there is always a question of how far to push on discovery issues.
A new case decided this week in U.S. District Court in Connecticut allows employers to push pretty hard to get an employee’s medical and therapist records. In order for that to happen, the employee needs to put