You might think that smoking pot on the job as a state employee would be justifiable grounds to get you fired.
A no-brainer, right?
(Let’s save a discussion for eating brownies and swearing at your cat for another blog post.)
After all, even the Connecticut Supreme Court is stating that the “statutory, regulatory and
If you like getting lost on roads with your head spinning on which way to go, this is your post. (Everyone else, well, try to keep up.) I recap a case for companies with unions to pay attention to.
Let’s start with this example:
Employee X is required by law to report suspected abuse in
With all the talk about the state’s implementation of medical marijuana laws, it’s easy to wonder what impact those laws will have on terminating employees who use marijuana on the job.
One recent Superior Court decision gave a pretty clear answer for state employees: None. In other words, for employers: Fire Away.
That, of course,
Sometimes, cases that seem like a no-brainer are anything but. Just ask the Town of Stratford which finally won an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
The case, Stratford v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 15 (download here), will be officially released next week.
The case arises from the town’s termination of a police officer. After suffering an epilectic seizure and striking two parked cars, the officer was requested to go to a physician for a fitness for duty exam after his own physician cleared him for work.
After the independent medical exam, the employer’s HR director “discovered discrepancies between the report and the medical information supplied to the town by [the employee’s] personal physician.”
The employer then charged the employee with violating police department policy for lying during the independent medical examination and he was subsequently terminated after a hearing.
The case went to arbitration. For those who are skeptical of arbitration, you can imagine what happened next.
The arbitration panel reinstated the police officer concluding that termination was “excessive” and that “lying about his physical and mental condition to doctors that could return (or prevent) [him] to work is understandable because [he] wants [his] job back.”
The employer moved to vacate the arbitration decision. Notably, its rationale was limted to police officers, arguing that Connecticut public policy encourages honesty by police officers. The Superior Court disagreed, but the town found a friendlier audience in its appeal to the Appellate Court.
We agree with the town that these authorities plainly demonstrate a clear public policy in Connecticut in favor of honest police officers and, consequently, against lying by police officers in connection with their employment.
As a result, the Court overturned the arbitration result and the termination is allowed to stand. (No word yet whether this will be appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.)
What does this mean for employers? Two things.
Continue Reading Lying to Doctors for Fitness for Duty Exam Can Still Get You Fired… But Only If You’re a Police Officer
Suppose an employee takes maternity leave from a position. 
Due to health complications, that leave is extended multiple times (past the 12 or 16 weeks required under FMLA or CT FMLA). The employee remains an employee pursuant to a short-term disability plan. When the employee is ultimately medically cleared to work, does the employer
A few weeks ago, I pointed out an old employment law prohibiting minors from operating elevators was still on the books. The Connecticut Law Tribune picked up on the story with a reference to the blog (though its hidden behind a paid registration page so you’ll have to take my word on it). So are