Your former employee files suit against your company in federal court in Connecticut claiming that she is entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. You go to a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. After a few hours of back and forth negotiation, you reach a settlement with the ex-employee.
Is judicial approval
Statute of limitations — or, in plain English, the deadline to file a lawsuit — are sometimes able to be used by employers when employees and their counsel file their employment law claims late.
But a recent federal court decision in Connecticut had to look at a fairly novel issue: Did the CHRO mislead the
Employees generally are eligible for overtime if they work more than 40 hours of work, unless one of the limited exceptions applies.
Employers typically rely on one of the three white-collar exemptions — administrative, executive or learned professional — when making arguments as to why an employee is not eligible for overtime.
A new federal
At 47 pages, U.S. District Court Judge Hall’s decision last week in Costello v. Home Depot USA (download here) denying an employer’s motion for summary judgment in an overtime case, isn’t exactly a light read.
She is, of course, not to blame. The
A federal court judge this week rejected claims by the Connecticut Department of Labor that a company’s failure to pay a performance based bonus constituted a failure to pay wages. In doing so, the Court appears to be in line with recent Connecticut Supreme Court precedents rejecting such claims as well.
This morning, Jon Hyman over at the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, reported on a 6th Circuit decision that suggested that an employment discrimination claim could survive even in the absence of a jury finding an “adverse employment action.”
Yesterday, a District Court decision in Connecticut said exactly the opposite. Indeed, the court granted an employer’s
Suppose you’re an employer who has been served with a wage & hour claim. Rather than fight the claim, you decide to give in.
You file an Offer of Judgment (under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if you’re keeping track at home) and offer to provide the employee with more than
Continuing my occasional series of revisiting posts I’ve done over the last (nearly) five years, I look back to one I did during the first month of blogging.
In a post on September 14, 2007, I looked at an online resource often overlooked — the chambers practices of federal judges which is found on 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
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Garcetti v. Ceballos that an employee’s speech pursuant to the employee’s official job duties was not protected by the First Amendment, employers have attempted to use that case as a shield against free speech lawsuits by employees.
But a decision by a federal court in Connecticut late