Over the weekend, the General Assembly approved a bill prohibiting employers, including the state and its political subdivisions, from asking, or directing a third-party to ask, about a prospective employee’s wage and salary history.

I have previously discussed the measure here.  There were a few versions floating around and it was House Bill 5386 that carried the day (as amended).

The prohibition does not apply in two situations:

  • if the prospective employee voluntarily discloses his or her wage and salary history, or;
  • to any actions taken by an employer, employment agency, or its employees or agents under a federal or state law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of salary history for employment purposes.

While salary may not be inquired, the bill DOES allow an employer to ask about the other elements of a prospective employee’s compensation structure (e.g., stock options), but the employer may not ask about their value.

The bill has a two year statute of limitations. Employers can be found liable for compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, punitive damages, and any legal and equitable relief the court deems just and proper.  This bill amends Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40z

As amended, the effective date of the bill is now January 1, 2019.

The final bill is different from a prior bill because it eliminates provisions that generally would have (1) allowed employers to ask about the value of a prospective employee’s stocks or equity, (2) allowed employers to seek a court order to disallow compensatory or punitive damages, and (3) required certain employers to count an employee’s time spent on protected family and medical leave towards the employee’s seniority.

For employers, upon signature from the governor, this bill will become law.  As such, employers should notify all of their hiring personnel of the new restrictions that are likely to go in place effective January 1, 2019. I’ll have more updates after the legislative session winds down this week.

Are you ready for blockchain’s impact in employment law?

This seems to be the new equivalent to the buzz a decade ago that social media was going to change the world (it kinda did).

Perhaps bigger.

At this point in the post, there are probably two reactions: 1) Tell me more!; and 2) What are you even TALKING about?

So, let’s start with the second question first — what is the “blockchain”? There are many discussions, but one recent ABA article had this to say:

Blockchain is commonly defined as a decentralized digital ledger in which transactions are recorded chronologically and publicly. In its infancy stages, blockchain was the mechanism that tracked cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. However, as the technology evolved, variations such as private, permissioned, and consortium blockchains have emerged. Ultimately, blockchain technology can facilitate many types of business transactions.

Another article by a lawyer described the hype as follows:

By design, blockchains are inherently resistant to modification of the data—once recorded, the data in a block cannot be altered retroactively without obviously corrupting later blocks, which depend on the original data from the earlier block as part of the hash. It can take enormous time and energy to go back and rehash subsequent blocks to try to hide the earlier alteration, and in the meantime new blocks are being added to the chain. This makes a blockchain extremely resistant to modification.

The applications of the blockchain are still in the infancy phase.  (The hype cycle for blockchain is in the “peak of inflated expectations” period and it projects that we are still 5-10 years off from maturity.) And thus, any discussion regarding its implications in the employment law arena are necessarily speculative.

But let the speculation begin.

For example, one human resources expert suggested some uses for this technology as follows:

  • It may make the concept of a “self-sovereign identity” for employees a reality, making verification of past employment or certifications easier and more secure. (Or this breathless article about “Blockchain-based CVs Could Change Employment Forever.“)
  • Potentially, you could run payroll off the blockchain to make those transactions more secure.
  • It could also be used to help employers keep confidential health information and transmit it more easily.

It only takes some imagination to go beyond that as well.

  • “Smart” employment law contracts, in which transactions automatically happen, could be introduced into the workplace.
  • Or the blockchain could be used to secure IP rights to company products, thereby avoiding the confusion as to whether the employee or the employer “owns” such rights.

Blockchain is still very much developing and I wouldn’t be surprised if this article seemed a bit dated a few years from now.  After all, who would’ve thought you could order a car (Uber) inside a social messaging app (Facebook) just a decade ago?

But employers and their attorneys who stay up on technology should understand the potential implications for blockchain in the workplace and be ready to adapt once the technology becomes mature enough to use.  From my perspective, there’s still time to keep reading about this developing technology; the time for action is still yet to come.

Late Friday, you might have (ok, I’m sure you did) missed a press release from the United States Department of Justice announcing a settlement with a staffing agency in California.

The charge? That a staffing company “discriminated against work-authorized non-U.S. citizens in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”

Now, I’m sure you all know (ok, I’m sure a few of you don’t know), that after an offer of employment is made, employers must require the to-be-hired individuals to present documentation to verify their eligibility to work in the United States.

But the DOJ charged that the “company’s staff required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documents during the employment eligibility verification process to establish their work authority. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from placing additional documentary burdens on work-authorized employees during the employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin.”

I’ve previously discussed the I-9 form in some prior posts.  But in essence, employers need to use consistent practices at the start of employment.

The staffing agency is learning this issue the hard way:  Under the settlement agreement, the company “will pay $230,000 in civil penalties to the United States, create a $35,000 back pay fund to compensate individuals who may have lost wages due to the company’s practices and undergo training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA.”  Oh, and the agency will be subject to government monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.

Employers have a lot to worry about when hiring new employees.  Add consistent treatment of new hires to the list.