Put aside, for the moment, fears of the omicron variant. We just don’t know enough about it even though Connecticut had its first case announced this weekend.
And put aside, for the moment, the new mandate in New York City that is requiring all employers to require proof of vaccination for employees.
Rather, I
This post is for the employment law nerds out there.
You know who you are.
You pore over the statistics that show a correlation between the unemployment rate and EEOC filings. (I see you Lawffice Space.)
You rate who the “Worst Employer” is of 2017. (Can’t wait for the announcement next week, Ohio
For years, I’ve been “warning” about the upcoming holiday of Valentine’s Day.
Back in 2011, I recapped several cases where employees’ inappropriate behavior on this day of love, led to lawsuits.
Apparently, there were some people who didn’t read the blog, because just a few years after that,
So in a post earlier on Friday, I recapped most of the employment law legislation that passed — except one. That bill, Senate Bill 446, was titled “AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM “DOMESTIC WORKER”.
Innocuous enough, right?
But as it turns out, that bill was used as a cover to pass through significant changes to the CHRO process.
You will see that many of the changes are ones that I had tipped you all on earlier this year. Then back in April, we were told that the bill was “mostly dead”.
But like the Princess Bride, “Miracle Max” worked some magic and the bill came back from the dead during the session’s last week.
And there are so many changes that a separate blog post seemed like the best way to get through it all.
So let’s get to it, shall we?
Overall, the OLR summary of the bill recaps four main areas of change to the CHRO. It:
But it also makes a significant change to the definition of who is an employee:
The bill also brings domestic workers who work for employers with at least three employees under the employment-related anti-discrimination laws administered by CHRO. Among other things, this provides them with (1) protections against employment-related discrimination based on their race, color, religion, age, sex, gender identity, marital status, national origin, ancestry, and mental or physical disability; (2) a right to a reasonable leave of absence for a disability resulting from a pregnancy and other pregnancy-related protections; and (3) protections against sexual harassment. By law, employees covered under the CHRO statutes can enforce their rights by filing a complaint with the commission.
If signed by the governor, the CHRO provisions will go into effect October 1, 2015, while the provisions on domestic workers will become effective January 1, 2016.
In more detail, the bill makes several changes to the CHRO process.
Responding to the Complaint
Continue Reading Back from the Dead: Procedural Changes Coming to CHRO and New Protections for Domestic Workers
I’ve talked many times before about the importance of a well-drafted disclaimer in your employee handbook (here and here, for example).
This is not a new thing and in Connecticut dates back to an important case back in 1995 .
Without such disclaimers, employers can be subject to a breach of contract claim
With every new law that gets passed, it’s easy to overlook the existing requirements that employers must follow.
After all, if employers are just tracking the new laws down without first nailing down compliance with “older” ones, then they are leaving themselves just as vulnerable to potential claims.
One area that is easy to overlook is sexual harassment prevention, particularly in Connecticut. Indeed, some employers believe that simply adopting a policy is all that is required.
And they would be wrong.
So, it’s time to go back to the basics and make sure you’ve hit the checklist when it comes to sexual harassment prevention in Connecticut. Here are some things to consider:
Continue Reading Back to the Basics on Sexual Harassment Prevention
I’m going to let you in on a little secret.
Not all employment law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court matter are of equal significance and importance to employers.
What? How can that be, you say? It’s the SUPREME COURT! Isn’t everything that they say important?
Well, sort
Another day, another story about an employee in hot water over Facebook posts.
It’s becoming so commonplace that I must admit a bit of Facebook Fatigue on the subject. I mean, how many stories do we need about an employee who says something that they think is private on Facebook only to later discover
Although we already have record registration for our next webinar (scheduled for Wednesday, August 12th at noon EDT), it’s not too late to register here. At this webinar, I’ll discuss the basics of some of the most popular social media platforms (like Twitter) and the effect and implications that these sites have on 
your workplace.