Years ago, I wrote about how state employment law imposed a duty to engage in an interactive dialogue with an employee who had a disability and was requesting a reasonable accommodation.
But what it does it truly mean to engage in an interactive process?
A new case from the Connecticut Appellate Court provides some
As I’ve previously talked about, two new federal laws protecting pregnant workers and nursing employees are now in effect (with the protections for pregnant workers taking effect on June 27, 2023).
I want to use this post to talk about: the implications for employers in states like Connecticut that already have protections under state law
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