For employers, the time is ripe to think about a new strategy going forward. That strategy may focus on protection of confidential information and specific non-solicitation clauses. Regardless, the time of using non-compete agreements broadly may be coming to an end soon.
The recent announcement of the proposed
Earlier today, my colleague Sarah Niemiroski and I drafted the following alert which has been cross-posted at our firm’s website.
In a move with profound implications for workplaces, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) on Thursday, January 5, 2023, issued a sweeping proposal that would ban all non-compete agreements between employers and employees. While the timing
If you look at the state Department of Labor website, you’ll find a notation about “proposed amended FMLA regulations” that have not yet been put into place. It adds “approval pending”.
As the modern saying goes: Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
In fact, last month – as I previewed in
You may recall that back in December 2019 (doesn’t that seem like so long ago?), the General Assembly and Governor Lamont fashioned a compromise on so-called “dual duties” legislation.
The bill required the Department of Labor to revisit a 1950 regulation that has been interpreted by some as requiring time that a server spends
Last week, I posted about a proposed Governor’s bill that would expand the training requirements for some employers.
However, that appears to be just a small part of a wider political battle that is about to be raised.
Yesterday, a group of Senate Democrats proposed, according to a handout, the “Largest Overhaul in Modern Connecticut
The Connecticut General Assembly is back in session and with significant budget deficits looming, it’s not going to be an easy year for legislators.
From a labor and employment law session, once again it will be interesting to see what will be seriously considered.
A Bloomberg Law article late last week suggested that Democrats in
The first few days of the new Connecticut legislative session are, dare I say it, kind of fun from an outsider perspective. That is, if you know what you are looking at.
Why? Because it’s the time when legislators start submitting “proposed” bills. But these proposals are far from polished products. Sometimes, these proposals are
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?
A lot of people have been writing about a recent court ruling that upheld significant portions of a new NLRB-promulgated poster that will get put up on a wall in some common area.
I’ve been reluctant to write about it because, as I mentioned back in the fall, things continue to change on this particular
The new legislative session at the Connecticut General Assemblybegan last week and the Labor & Public Employee Committee wasted no time setting an agenda for bills for discussion in this short legislative session.
At a committee meeting last Thursday, the Committee discussed a variety of