In a case that will be officially released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the damages award for former employee in a wrongful termination lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to reasonably estimate his lost wages.

The court found that the plaintiff’s testimonial evidence, backed by proven facts, satisfied the reasonable certainty

Suppose an employee or tenant is the victim of housing or employment discrimination/harassment; what is the value of the ordinary (or in the court’s words “garden variety”) emotional distress that person suffers as a result of such discrimination or harassment.

I’ve actually talked about this before; back in 2021, the Appellate Court was asked

Engaging in the interactive process is an important — and sometimes overlooked — part of an employer’s response to a request for a reasonable accommodation under state and federal law.

I talked about this way back in 2008 (!) when the state Supreme Court released it’s landmark Curry v. Allen S. Goodman decision expanding the

It would be easy to say that the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday has nothing to do with the workplace and therefore presents no employment law issues.

But such an approach would not only be foolish, it would be wrong.

The full impact of the decision will be felt for an entire generation while a full analysis of the decision’s impact will take some more time too (though my partners have done a great job with one here).  But it’s apparent from the first few reads of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is that it presents a real challenge for employers and is so disruptive in so many ways both for employers and employees.

First, the decision minimizes (at best) or ignores (at worst) the concept of “stare decisis” which is that the Court’s prior decisions become binding precedent — and therefore have meaning.  People can rely on those decisions to predict what will happen next and respect the decision once it gets made.  If the Court undermines that concept, it risks becoming exactly like the much maligned National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is a federal agency that, some would argue, changes its mind depending on how the Board is composed (whether Democrat majority or Republican).  For example of such a flip flop, see one of my prior posts about the NLRB here.

This is not a good thing; the Rule of Law depends on people having some faith in the institution itself.  If people think the system is rigged to whatever party is in power, then the more likely they will be to minimize its importance or keep fighting until they think the system is in their favor.  Stare Decisis provided some measure of comfort to parties and gave employers the opportunity to plan for the future.Continue Reading Dobbs and the Impact of the Court’s Decision for Employers

There’s going to be lots of virtual ink spilled about the politics of the Supreme Court’s decision today and the ultimate ramifications of the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard.  In case you hadn’t heard, the  Supreme Court this afternoon decided to grant a stay of the OSHA rule, meaning it is on hold and employers now

Before the pandemic (remember then?), you may recall a case last year that drew headlines: Chip’s Family Restaurants was having issues with a class action lawsuit filed against the small chain by allegedly improperly deducting a tip credit from server earnings thereby paying those potential class members below the minimum wage for the performance of

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the “ministerial exception” that bars some employment discrimination claims against religious institutions, also bars such claims by elementary school teachers at private Catholic schools.  The case further clarifies an exception that came to prominence back in 2012 and expands the reach of the exception.   I noted then

In the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court case in many years, the Court ruled this morning that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

You can download the 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, here.

Connecticut has long prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual