Senate Bill 3, titled “Combatting Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment” has been modified since first introduced and passed the Senate late last week. Despite the title, the bill would impact every discrimination case filed in the state and would make significant changes to the sexual harassment prevention training requirements.
Update: A few days after this post, the General Assembly failed to give final approval to this measure, leaving it to die at the end of the legislative session on May 9, 2018.
Early Friday morning, the state Senate approved a bill that would significant broaden the sexual harassment prevention training requirements and many other provisions in discrimination law. A similar (but notably different) bill passed the House; now, this Senate bill on the House calendar for this week.
It’s not a done deal just yet, but here are the key provisions of Senate Bill 132 (as amended) as it seems probable this bill is close to final passage. Thanks to the OLR for summarizing the key aspects of the bill of which I’ve borrowed heavily from.
- The bill would change the training requirements for sexual harassment prevention.
- It would require training for supervisory employees of all employers, regardless of size
- For nonsupervisory employees of employers with 20 or more employees, it would also require training.
- Overall, the training would need to take place by October 1, 2019 with some additional tweaks specified in the bill.
- The bill requires CHRO to develop and make available to employers an online training and education video or other interactive method of training and education that fulfills the bill’s training requirements.
- Under the bill, employers who are required to provide such training must, at least every ten years, provide supplemental training to update employees on the content of the training and education.
INFORMATION AND POSTING
- Currently, employers must post a notice that (1) that sexual harassment is illegal and (2) of the remedies available to victims. Under the bill, this information must be sent to employees by email, within three months of hire, if the (1) employer has provided an email account to the employee or (2) employee has provided the employer with an email address. The email’s subject line must include “Sexual Harassment Policy” or something similar.
Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee (by a 25-16 vote) approved of Senate Bill 132, being labelled by it’s proponents as the “Time’s Up” bill but covers both harassment and discrimination cases. I covered an announcement of this a while back.
As the bill moves closer to consideration now to the state Senate, it’s…
Last week, I posted about a proposed Governor’s bill that would expand the training requirements for some employers.
However, that appears to be just a small part of a wider political battle that is about to be raised.
Yesterday, a group of Senate Democrats proposed, according to a handout, the “Largest Overhaul in Modern Connecticut…
A new decision from Presiding Human Rights Referee at the CHRO (CHRO ex rel. Roig v. State of Conn., Department of …
How many times do you have to win?
That’s a question that employers may ask themselves when dealing with employment cases because the fact is, a enterprising litigant can make things quite expensive on the thinnest of facts.
Indeed, employers may be wondering if these cases are like…
Recently, the CHRO provided an update on the status of cases at the commission. In a comment to the blog, Charles Krich reported “the ratio of cases closed to cases filed is a bit over 90% during the July 1, 2011 to February 29, 2012 period (3/4 of this fiscal year). In FY 11 the …
Employers in Connecticut (and other states) have a whole host of notices that must go up in a common meeting area for employees to see.
But what happens when an employer forgets to do the postings, or, worse, purposely avoids putting those posters up?
A recent federal…
My thanks to my colleague, Mick Lavelle, who has drafted the following post on a noteworthy issue decided today by the Connecticut Appellate Court. For employers with long-standing discrimination claims, it’s worth understanding what the statute of limitations are on such claims.
Most employers know that claims of employment discrimination can be brought under …
Back in February, I noted that not all U.S. Supreme Court cases are created equal and warned employers not to get too excited about a case that was then being argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — Lewis v. City of Chicago.
Yesterday, the Court released its unanimous decision (download here) …