Twas the day before the night before Christmas
And all thru the law office
Not a creature was stirring
Except the employment lawyers reading the new Congressional Omnibus spending bill and looking for the employment law provisions tucked neatly inside.
In a parting gift for employers and employees, Congress passed a broad spending bill on
Last week, I attended the ABA Annual Labor & Employment Law Conference — something I’ve written about on this blog pre-pandemic (remember when?).
There were many good programs and I’ll try to talk about some of the other topics in an upcoming blog post or two.
However, one topic that I was interested in
Engaging in the interactive process is an important — and sometimes overlooked — part of an employer’s response to a request for a reasonable accommodation under state and federal law.
I talked about this way back in 2008 (!) when the state Supreme Court released it’s landmark Curry v. Allen S. Goodman decision expanding the
When I got my first Macintosh computer in college, I was fascinated by little soundbites that you could add and play.
One of my favorites was a clip from the movie “2001” where Hal, the seemingly sentient space computer, says to an astronaut: “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” in response to
As the Delta variant continues make its presence known, more employers are continuing to explore mandatory vaccination policies for their staff. This comes on the heels of Governor Lamont’s executive order that requires teachers and others to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing.
My colleagues and I have been fielding questions on
Maybe it’s the Delta variant. Or maybe the publicity regarding Walmart and Disney. But over the last two weeks or so, there’s been a renewed interest in whether employers can mandate vaccines in Connecticut.
Indeed, we have been fielding lots of questions from employers (and friends and family) about mandatory vaccination policies. But many of
I’m excited. And nervous. And happy. And angry. And energized. And exhausted.
And my oldest daughter hasn’t even started her first day of college next week.
(Proud Dad aside: She’s headed to WPI next week as a freshman where she wants to study aerospace engineering!)
Around Connecticut, the nervousness and excitement has been palpable and
The Connecticut Appellate Court issued a new decision (officially released today) that will have important ramifications for employers proceeding with the CHRO mandatory mediation stage. Specifically, based on this ruling, most settlement discussions during the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities’ mediation stage will be inadmissible in a later court proceeding. The decision also holds
Recently, I saw a skiing dog. Oh, and it was wearing sunglasses too.
To be fair (to the dog), it was actually tucked neatly in a backpack while the owner was in line for the chairlift.
I didn’t actually see the dog skiing, but you get the picture. (Which I did capture!)
I thought I
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