As I did last year, after I posted on the general statistics of the CHRO to see if we could glean any trends, I took a deeper dive into what the statistics this year show. And there were definitely a few surprises.
Obviously, at the risk of repeating yesterday’s post, FY 2015-2016 was
Picture this scenario:
You come into your office one morning to learn that an employee has filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that you failed to accommodate his disability reasonably and then terminated his employment because of his disability.
As if that isn’t challenging enough, many months afterwards,
While a recent Second Circuit case received lots of headlines regarding its discussion of individual liability under FMLA, the case has some other nuggets for employers to understand, as my colleague Gary Starr explains in today’s post. Buried in Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America case is a reference to the fact that the federal
My colleague, Jarad Lucan (who just won a New Leader of the Law award from the Connecticut Law Tribune!) returns today with a post about the protections employees who testify in court may have.
Most employers (at least those employers that read this blog on a regular basis) know that it is illegal to
In yesterday’s post, I talked about how employment claims being filed are up big at the CHRO.
Indeed, in looking at the statistics further, I realized that it is the second highest number of claims being filed in the last 15 years.
So, FY 2015 was a very big year for claims.
But
Believe it or not, harassment against summer interns isn’t directly prohibited under Connecticut law. (But treating them like employees without paying them is against the law.)
This is not, however, a column about the best ways to harass your interns. Indeed, regardless of
I know. We’re a bit of a broken record here. Another post on the perils on retaliation claims. (I’m resisting adding the “so sue me” joke here.)
But new decisions from the courts keep coming out which give us an opportunity to do refreshers to employers and provide subtle tweaks to the associated
When the U.S. Supreme Court changed the standard for proving retaliation cases back in 2013, there was some speculation as to whether the standard would result in different decisions.
Before the court’s decision, employees who claimed they were retaliated against, needed to show only that the retaliatory motive was a “substantial or motivating fact” affecting
Just a quick followup today on a post from last month.
As I reported then, a District Court judge dismissed a closely-watched EEOC lawsuit against CVS challenging a pretty standard severance agreement. But the grounds for the dismissal were unknown back then.
The wait is over; the written decision was released yesterday. For
Much will be written about the new First Amendment free-speech-in-the-workplace case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court today.
But frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them say nearly the same thing — that testimony by an employee who has been subpoenaed outside the course of his