Over the weekend, I finished binge-watching Apple TV+’s The Morning Show and had two immediate reactions.
First off, OMG these people are not social-distancing. The workplace is so crowded! WHERE ARE THEIR MASKS?
But after that, I was impressed that the show presented a fairly complicated (at least for a drama) presentation of the
The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities recently announced that it will, upon request, extend the deadline for employers to provide sexual harassment prevention training by 90 days for new employees.
The deadline to complete such training is six months after their start date, absent an extension.
But employers should beware; the announcement has three
If you’re a Connecticut employer, new requirements regarding training and posting — as well as changes to the underlying anti-discrimination law — should be a must-read.
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, the General Assembly passed a series of revisions to Senate Bill 3, which itself passed over the weekend. Together, these series of changes (S.B. 1111 and S.B. 3) will impact employers of all sizes and cases at the CHRO.
In essence, you had a bill that was amended after it already passed. Rather than get into what was in the original bill vs. final bill, I thought it might be helpful just to recap what is in the final version of the bills, as combined.
Governor Lamont is expected to sign these bills in the next week or so.
To be clear, this recap should not be a substitute for legal advice and this recap only addresses some of the most relevant private employer provisions; there’s some provisions in there regarding EEO officers for state agencies that are beyond the scope of this recap. Credit should also be given to the state’s OLR Bill Analysis as well.
TRAINING
Currently, employers with at least 50 employees are required to give their supervisors two hours of training on state and federal sexual harassment laws and remedies.
The new law will require employers of all sizes to give training to supervisors by October 1, 2020 (or within six months of their assumption of supervisory duties, after that time).
For employers with 3 or more employees, the training must also be given to all other employees also by October 1, 2020 (or within six months of hire, after that time.)
In both instances, the training must be updated every ten years by employers, though it doesn’t seem to be the same two hours — just a “supplemental” update. Also, any employee (including supervisor) trained since October 1, 2018 is exempt from being “retrained” a second time.
The bill requires CHRO to develop a free online training video or other interactive method. If that’s done on time, employers will have to give the training within six months of an employee’s start date.
If employers don’t provide training, it will now be a “discriminatory practice” that may allow employees to bring an action in the CHRO (or court). The fine for failing to provide training will be $750.
NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES
The new law (piggybacking on existing law which requires a notice be posted regarding sexual harassment) will require employers of three or more employees to send a copy of this to employees via e-mail within 3 months of hire — so long as the employee has an e-mail address (company-provided or personal). The subject line should be titled “Sexual Harassment Policy” or words very similar to that effect. If the employer doesn’t give employees an e-mail address, the information must be included on its website. If the CHRO develops something on their own, the employer can just provide this link.
The fine for failing to do so will be $750 as well.
CORRECTIVE ACTION IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
When an employer takes prompt remedial action in response to a claim of sexual harassment, the new law requires that the employer can only modify the target’s condition of employment upon agreement in writing from the employee. That means, transferring an employee to a different department can only be done upon written consent.
BUT, even if the employer did not obtain the written consent, the bill still allows the CHRO to find that the employer’s corrective action was reasonable and not “to the detriment” to the complainant, based on the evidence.
TIMEFRAME FOR FILING DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT CLAIMS
Continue Reading The Definitive Employer Guide to Connecticut’s New Anti-Sexual Harassment Law
In trying to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace, how do we go beyond just training?
That is, in essence, the question that my colleagues (Jarad Lucan and Ashley Marshall) and I have been talking about recently.
And, fortunately for you, a topic of a free CLE webinar we are putting on a few weeks.
My partner Gary Starr returns with this pre-Thanksgiving tale that seems appropriate not for the holiday, but for the headlines of late.
Happy Thanksgiving and stay out of trouble.
Another day, another celebrity figure accused of harassment.
Or worse.
Many of the accounts reveal the abuse of power and the lack of respect shown to
I confess that when I first heard the story last week that some Capitol Hill lawmakers were refusing to meet alone with female subordinates, I didn’t pay much attention to it. Lawmakers just being lawmakers.
(I was also reminded of the old Billy Joel song, I Don’t Want to Be Alone Anymore,
I’ve long since preached about the need for ongoing sexual harassment prevention training.
My new firm, Shipman & Goodwin LLP has a series of trainings scheduled that should hopefully fit your schedule if you or your employees have a need for such training.
The next one is scheduled for August 27th in Hartford from
A case out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (of which, Connecticut is part of) addresses an interesting question:
When a jury finds that sexual harassment has been perpetuated by a single employee, is injunctive (non-monetary) relief required to be issued by the District Court?
The EEOC argued yes and argued that remedies such as preventing the harassing employee from returning to the workplace were appropriate.
The Second Circuit agreed in part, saying that ordinarily a termination of a lone harasser should be enough. But the court said that given the egrigious facts of this particular case, something more should’ve been done to protect the female employees from potential future harassment.
The case, EEOC v. KarenKim, Inc. (d/b/a Paul’s Big M Grocery), can be downloaded here.
There’s a lot of facts to the case, but this summary, by the Outten & Golden Employment Law Blog, captures some of the salient points:
KarenKim is a grocery store whose employees largely consist of teenage female employees. The company is owned and managed by Karen Connors. In 2001, she hired Allen Manwaring as the store manager. In 2006, Connors and Manwaring became romantically involved and had a son together.
At trial, a number of current and former employees testified about Manwaring’s sexual harassment of the female employees, which consisted of verbal and physical harassment. Some of his verbal comments included making comments of a sexual nature to employees and compliments about parts of their body. He told one employee that if he was her boyfriend, he would never “let her out of his sheets” and that “if he was 10 years younger, he would be on top of her.” He also physically harassed the women by touching and massaging them in inappropriate ways and on a daily basis. He would brush up against them to deliberately touch their breasts, put his crotch against their buttocks, breath on their necks, hug them, and squeeze their hips.
Oy.Continue Reading What Remedy Is Appropriate When a Jury Concludes Sexual Harassment Occurred?
One of the great local treats in Connecticut this time of year is a corn maze. My favorite for the last few years is the one created by Lyman Orchards in Middlefield, C
T. (And while you’re there, don’t miss picking a few apples or getting a fresh apple pie).
Mazes aren’t anything new. Employment