On “Survivor”, one of my favorite broadcast TV shows (or, as my YouTube/Netflix watching teens might say — “what’s that?”) the notion of “immunity” plays a central role in the outcome of an episode.
And in a decision released last week by the Connecticut Supreme Court, whether or not to grant immunity again plays a
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Janus v. AFSCME (download here) reversed 40 years of labor law precedent and concluded that requiring public employees to pay “agency fees” for labor unions that they don’t want to belong to violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Previously, prior cases have banned forcing public sector
In an important 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning held, for the first time, that class or collective action waivers, particularly in wage/hour cases, and contained in arbitration agreements between employers and employees are valid and enforceable.
Because wage and hour class and collective actions are quite costly for employers to defend
“Joe, in response to all this NFL stuff, we want you to display U.S. flags at your workstation.”
“No.”
“Well, then you’re fired.”
Don’t think that can happen? Then you haven’t heard about the Cotto v. United Technologies Corp. case — a long-forgotten Connecticut Supreme Court case from 20 years ago that has particular
A lot has been made of the recent district court decision on legal job protections for qualifying medical marijuana patients.
But the decision has another piece that has been overlooked and which may cause employers some heartburn as well.
The “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress” cause of action has been on life support for
It never seems to fail; I go on vacation and the Connecticut Supreme Court issues one of the few employment law decisions it issues every year during that week.
Fortunately for all of us, it concerns the fluctuating work week method of overtime computation which most employers in the state consciously either avoid or try
The Connecticut Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision that will be officially released April 4, 2017, has ruled that employers may not use the “tip credit” for pizza delivery drivers and therefore, the employees must be paid the standard minimum wage.
You can download the decision in Amaral Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Labor here.
I still remain amazed at the sold-out crowd we had at last week’s Labor & Employment Law seminar. Well over 250 people registered for the program and I kind of wanted to whisper to people: “You know this is just a LEGAL seminar, right?”
But no matter. Employment law issues are as popular as ever
Thanks to all who came to our Labor & Employment seminar on Thursday. Our biggest crowd yet. In it, we talked about the importance of offer letters. Marc Herman returns today with a post updating us on a recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision that came out while I was on vacation a while back that
The CHRO is no stranger to taking aggressive positions in the court system.
So, it can really be no surprise that the agency wanted to expand who is covered by the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
But the Connecticut Supreme Court, as it has done before, was having none of it. The end result of the case