As I’ve lamented from my very first post, too often the press focuses on new cases that are brought without placing them in context. Yet every month, federal and state courts in Connecticut consider dozens of employment law cases that never make the headlines.
One
The running joke by employment lawyers is that even though Connecticut is an at-will employment state, employees can sue their employers at any time for any reason or no reason at all. (I’ll wait while you laugh groan.)
The joke touches on the perception by employers that employees can seemingly file the most frivolous of complaints. And the perception that courts will not take any action to dismiss those claims.
A new case out of the federal district court in Connecticut shows how that perception can be wrong, however.
In Friedman v. USPS, a letter carrier (who suffered from lateral epicondylitis — tennis elbow) claimed that employer violated the ADA when in changed his status even though it did not affect his income, his seniority, his ability to secure further employment with USPS or cause him any actual or imminent economic injury.
When the employer filed for summary judgment, it did not bother to go through the normal burden-shifting analysis. Rather, it said that the employee lacked “standing” (or the right) to proceed with his claims at all.
Why?Continue Reading Court: No Injury by Employer = No Standing = No Case
Last week, a federal district court in Connecticut held that the Department of Corrections violated federal law in instituting a discriminatory physical fitness test that created a disparate impact on women. It also found tha
t the test was not job-related or necessary.
In doing so, the court granted summary judgment to the employee
You’ve seen a lot on this blog about how the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) may have a significant impact on how employment discrimination cases proceed.
We haven’t had many cases yet to judge that on because the Act was not retroactive, but a case recently decided in Connecticut District Court gives us some insight into
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
While fans of the long running television reality show Survivor may suggest the timing of this post is geared to the events of last night’s episode that featured two players who quit, there are actually two recent and noteworthy cases in Connecticut that show that employees who quit their jobs rare win discrimination claims that
There is an unspoken truth about the Superior Courts in Connecticut: Summary judgment for employers in employment-related claims is typically a long shot. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule.
A case to be released by the Connecticut Appellate Court next week shows the difficulty but also shows that at least with regard to
In employment discrimination cases, some of the day-to-day details of a person’s employment are sometimes disputed. Did an employee "continually" cry at work or only "occasionally" cry? And does it matter?
A recent Connecticut district court decision clarified that such trivial disputes about an employee’s background — without more — are not enough to be
If you’re an employer with an appeal to the Second Circuit, having the EEOC write a brief on behalf of the Plaintiff-employee is not one of those things that portends well for the case.
So, when the Second Circuit issued its decision in Pucino v. Verizon Communications (download here), perhaps the writing was already on