Thanksgiving evokes different emotions in people.
For some, it’s their favorite holiday. A time to get together with friends and family and celebrate all that life has to offer.
For others, it’s not as sweet. It can serve as a bitter reminder of all that has been lost in the past year, perhaps a job
Being sick over the last week brought me a lot of unexpected “gifts”. Sure, there were the forced afternoon naps (oh, who’s kidding, even a morning nap too) . The watching of “The Price is Right” at least once (or was it twice?). The early start of a post-pandemic diet.
But also the “gift” of
My colleague, Chris Engler, is back today with post getting into the ins and outs of the willful misconduct standard at the Connecticut Department of Labor. Last week, we had a senior CTDOL official speak to our Labor & Employment seminar about this and other pressing topics of interest to employers.
The bottom line:
My colleague, Peter Murphy, penned a great article in this week’s Connecticut Law Tribune discussing the uptick in cases challenging dress codes.
His conclusion?
As these cases demonstrate, employers remain free to establish dress codes or appearance standards that are appropriate for the nature of their business — whether chinos and golf shirts at
It’s always a little tricky to determine exactly how lower courts will apply a rule of law that develops from a U.S. Supreme Court.
Take the case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, decided in June, which held that a “but for” standard (i.e., that an employer would not have taken
So, your employees are all paid at least minimum wage and overtime. You’re good, right?
Not necessarily, as a recent column in the Connecticut Law Tribune points out. You might need to pay a “prevailing” wage — if you have a contract with the State of Connecticut.
Indeed, as many companies who do business
I’m often asked what some of my most popular posts are on the blog. Surprisingly, one topic that always seems to generate interest is the mileage reimbursement rate. I’m not quite sure why.
In any event, the new rate became effective January 1, 2012. Remember, this is the
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.
A decision last week by the Second Circuit might seem fairly trivial. After all, the Court stamped a "summary order" in the case of Cunningham v. NY State Dept. of Labor (download here) on June 10, 2009 thereby making sure the case doesn’t have precedential effect.
But employers shouldn’t ignore this decision; it illustrates the