If you’re like me, your brain can only handle so much during the summer months. Between vacations and the start of school, it can be easy to overlook some of the employment law developments from the last month or two. So I thought I’d use the next few blog posts to provide a catch up.
While all eyes are on the General Assembly for the developments for this year, we’re still dealing with a law passed several years ago raising the minimum wage.
Effective June 1, 2023, the minimum wage is now at $15 per hour.
Public Act 19-4 requires the minimum wage to increase five times over a five-year…
While mandatory vaccination policies are all the rage now, there’s an important new Connecticut law that is a “must-do” for employers here and not much time left to get into compliance.
Effective October 1, 2021, employers are prohibited from failing or refusing to provide a job applicant with the “wage range” of the position for…
It’s easy during this pandemic to forget about the other laws that are coming into play this year and next. Paid FMLA is going to be big.
But for now, employer have another one to consider: the minimum wage increase.
Last year, the General Assembly passed (and the Governor signed) a significant increase to the…
At our Shipman & Goodwin Labor & Employment Law seminar last week, one of the hot topics that got attendees talking was about minimum wage & overtime rules — both of which are in the midst of change.
But my fellow partners brought up another law in that discussion that shouldn’t be overlooked. And…
January 1st is typically a time for new laws to kick in and 2019 is no exception.
For employers, the biggest change is one that I discussed way back in May with amendments to Connecticut’s Pay Equity law.
The new law prohibits employers from asking a job applicant his or her wage and salary history.…
Over the weekend, the General Assembly approved a bill prohibiting employers, including the state and its political subdivisions, from asking, or directing a third-party to ask, about a prospective employee’s wage and salary history.
If at first you succeed, try it again.
Well, that may not be how the saying goes, but the first back-and-forth post between me and Nina Pirrotti, an employee-side attorney, was so well received that we’re back for another conversation.
Today’s topic: What legislation are we both keeping our eyes out for at the Connecticut General Assembly?
The Dialogue Begins
Dan Schwartz: So Nina, our first post was such a hit that I think we’re due for an encore. Thanks for being up for this.
It has only bewn a few weeks, but it feels like we’re moving at warp speed on developments. We could spend another post just on
The Donald, sorry, Mr. President. Somehow I think we’re likely to talk about that again soon.
But let’s focus today on some of the legislative items we’re keeping an eye on, particularly in Connecticut. Each year, it seems like our General Assembly likes to roll out fresh employment law ideas.
Is there a particular bill that you’re keeping your eye on now from an employee-side perspective?
Nina Pirrotti: I’m so glad you asked! Yes, let me tell you about one bill that has been on my mind on the federal level (I am speaking about it at an ABA conference in sunny Puerto Vallarta really soon) and then I will give you a couple of highlights from our backyard.
The federal bill that looms large for me right now (although concededly perhaps not as large as the prospect of sitting on the beach, tequila based beverage in hand) is the misleadingly named Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (“LARA”) which would force judges to respond to Rule 11 motions in a particular manner.
Rule 11 allows for the possibility of sanctions to be imposed on attorneys or parties who submit (or later advocate for) pleadings which have been filed for an improper purpose or which contain frivolous arguments or claims.
While Rule 11 motions rear their ugly heads relatively rarely in litigation, a newly invigorated Republican majority in Congress has proposed LARA which would amend the sanctions provisions in Rule 11 to remove all judicial discretion – – regardless of the circumstances of the individual case- – in two critical respects.
First it would require the court to sanction any attorney, law firm, or party who violates the rule. Second it forces judges who find the rule has been violated to order the offending party to pay the other party’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Those in my world who oppose LARA say that there is no proof Rule 11 is not working in its current form, that the changes would burden the courts and that its “once size fits all” mandatory sanctions would unfairly penalize employees in civil lawsuits.
Closer to home, two bills come to mind. The first is a proposed modification of C.G.S.A. 31-51m, a statute which bars employers from retaliating against employees who report employers’ unethical or legal wrongdoings to public bodies.
The modification seeks to protect employees who complain about such conduct internally or who refuse to participate in an activity they believe to be in violation of the law. It also seeks to extend the timeline to bring an action under the law (employees now have only 90 days to file) and to provide for a greater array of damages if the employer violates the statute.
The second is a proposal to provide eligible employees with paid Family and Medical Leave Act leave. The proposed legislation would require employees to contribute 1/2 of 1% of their wages to it (there would be no employer contribution) and employees cannot opt out it.
We plaintiff employment lawyers would welcome both pieces of legislation as long overdue and reasonably tailored to protect Connecticut’s workforce.
What are your thoughts from the other side of the aisle, Dan? Or is there other proposed legislation that has captured your attention?…
As I continue to reflect this week on nine years of blogging, it’s hard to recall that I started this before the Great Recession hit. Since that time, all businesses have become more cost-conscious and creative in how they are structured and how they compensate their employees. Non-profit organizations are no exception to that. But how can these workplaces continue to “do good” while rewarding their employees?
Today, I’m pleased to share this post from Marc Kroll, Managing Partner at Comp360 LLC. Marc talks total about how non-profits can implement a “Total Rewards” strategy and earn a return on their investment.
And what is “Total Rewards”? As the Houston Chronicle described it in a recent article: “Formerly referred to as simply compensation and benefits, total rewards takes on a more creative and broad definition of the ways employees receive compensation, benefits, perks and other valuable options. Total rewards include everything the employee perceives to be of value resulting from the employment relationship.”
Having a well-thought out compensation system is a key component to reducing liability and, hopefully, ensuring happy, productive employees. If you’re looking for ways to avoid dealing with employment lawyers on issues, getting ahead of issues like this is a natural step in the right direction. My thanks to Marc for his insights.
As a result of the slow growth economy, non-profit organizations are facing decreased funding due to federal and states’ fiscal deficits as well as a significant shift with grant-makers who are increasingly funding awards on a performance/return on investment basis. In addition, the soaring costs of healthcare insurance are adding significant pressure to operating costs.
Without new revenue growth, many non-profits are looking for ways to measure and increase the value/return on their social mission and investments.
Consistent with these changes, some non-profits are responding by trying to increase the “return” on their services and programs in terms of program execution, utilization, and measurable results. Given this environment, non-profits are being forced to examine the viability of their highest cost centers, most particularly, employee compensation and benefits for value against performance as well as market competitiveness.
Non-profit Boards and senior management are questioning what the appropriate compensation and benefit programs should be, at what levels they should be funded, and how to drive accountability and performance in the employee workforce.
While non-profit organizations have predominantly been about social service and charity with their cultures reflecting a “do-good” environment and a concern for employee welfare, present conditions have forced many to consider a culture shift toward performance and accountability as well as changes in their Total Rewards programs. This delicate balancing act between affordability and the ability to attract and retain a stable and talented workforce presents challenges in nonprofits’ capacity to assure effective organizational culture, management practices, labor market relevance, and strategic/operational priorities.
To help navigate this challenge, the following insights to six key questions provide a prescription for change in Total Rewards:
- What should your Total Rewards strategy be?
This is a statement developed by your Board or management committee on how the organization’s compensation and benefits programs will support and relate to your operational objectives, culture, management practices, and employee performance. It also describes both the labor market within which the organization wishes to compete and the level at which both compensation and benefit programs will be set and funded.…