The Connecticut Appellate Court released three significant employment law decisions on Monday — one of the busiest days in recent memory for the court.
For employers, the cases are a mixed bag but do provide some useful practice pointers.
City Sheriff Was Not an “Employee” Entitled to Statutory Protection
In Young v. Bridgeport, the Court
It’s been several years since employers had some decisions to cheer about at the Connecticut Supreme Court. But yesterday, the court released two important decisions that will likely rank as among the most significant the court has issued in the employment context in the last decade.
I represented the employer in one of those cases,
There’s the great scene in the movie “Network” that features the line – “I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not Going to Take it Anymore!”.
After 12 days without power, that’s a message that is resonating with me quite loudly.
But this is an employment law blog and
Back in February, I noted that a motion to dismiss in federal court — while still difficult to achieve — still had a pulse. That’s important for employers because it provides a mechanism for getting rid of frivolous claims early on with lower costs than federal lawsuits typically cost.
A new district court case gives
Power is still out to big parts of the state, but here in Hartford, power is on and life continues. And so must the blog…
Back in June, when the Connecticut General Assembly approved of the paid sick leave bill, I was quick to note that the retaliation provisions in the bill seemed to apply
Remember how I indicated that most of the paid sick leave bill covers only “service workers”? That’s true, but there is a big exception that hasn’t been mentioned much elsewhere.
Indeed, employers who have 50 or more employees should beware: The new Paid Sick Leave bill’s anti-retaliation provisions may cover all employees, not just the
For anyone who has been following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions interpreting wage & hour, discrimination and retaliation claims, yesterday’s decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics (download here), can hardly come as a surprise.
Indeed, in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that to "file" a complaint, an employee need only provide
In broad terms, the First Amendment prohibits public employers from retaliating against employees who engage in "protected speech". (Connecticut has a statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51q that purports to apply the First Amendment to private employers too.) But proving these cases remains difficult for employees.
And even victories may later end up as
A former Branford Facilities Manager’s claims that his employment was terminated due to protected speech and his political affiliation were effectively dismissed on Friday, February 25th when a federal court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
The 40-page opinion provides good roadmap for employers (and their attorneys) to understanding such claims and what is
The United States Supreme Court today, in an 8-0 decision (Justice Kagan recused herself), ruled that Title VII retaliation provisions include protection to those people who have suffered an adverse employment action and are in the same "zone of interest" as another employee who filed a charge.
What does that mean? Good question.