Rojgar Job News

On Tuesday, May 23rd, the Connecticut House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a measure that would greatly expand the already broad anti-discrimination provision that exist under Connecticut law.  The bill, House Bill 6668, would make several substantive changes to the protections including defining what is a “reasonable accommodation” instead of leaving that determination open. I’ve previously written extensively about the state laws covering pregnant employees before (here and here for example) so I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the current law so you can fully understand the contemplated change. But I’ll try to break it down here. Existing law makes it a discriminatory practice to: To terminate a woman’s employment because of her pregnancy; to refuse to grant to that employee a reasonable leave of absence for disability resulting from her pregnancy; to deny to that employee, who is disabled as a result of pregnancy, any compensat...

The Connecticut Appellate Court today released an important disability discrimination decision that gives employers some support for employees who struggle with employees who ask for “accommodations” for an indefinite leave for a medical condition. The case ostensibly addresses the request for “indefinite leave” which I’ve previously talked about it in prior posts. But the case boils down to a familiar set of facts for employers. An employee who one day says, “I need to take 30 days off for a medical condition” and leaves the employer to twist without further response. As explained by the court: The plaintiff informed the defendant that she would be taking a leave of absence, did not provide the defendant with any time frame for her return, and did not respond to the defendant’s subsequent attempts to contact her regarding her request for leave. The plaintiff effectively asked the defendant ‘‘to hold [her] position op...

Last week I talked about the new state law regarding pregnancy discrimination that is going into effect on October 1, 2017.  In that post, I mentioned a new notice that was required to comply with the law. Although there is no set form that is required to be used, the Connecticut Department of Labor has created one that is available for employers to use that will comply with the state law.  It is free to download here.   Because the content is useful, I’m using it down below so that employers can cut and paste it into a handbook or into a notice to be given to employee upon starting work too.  One can quibble with some of the word phrasings that are used, but overall — and stating the obvious — if you use this, you’ll be in comp liance according to the state. Covered Employers Each employer with more than 3 employees must comply with these anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodation laws related to an employee or job applicant’...

Through a recent FOI request, I was able to take a peek at the latest case statistics coming out of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. (The CHRO has since added them to the website as well.) I’ve done these recaps in years before (here’s 2016 for example) and I think you can learn a lot not just on the latest statistics but when you compare them to prior years. So, what do the numbers from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 show? Well, for the first time in several years, we’ve seen a noticeable  decrease in the numbers of complaints filed. In FY 16-17, 2376 total complaints were filed, down from 2616 the prior year – a 9 percent decrease.  Of course, it’s still  up from FY 11-12 when just 1838 total complaints were filed. And what about employment discrimination complaints in particular? The report also shows a drop in the number of complaints being filed, 1936, as compared to 2160 in the prior fiscal year.  That represents ...

An applicant for a job posting in education lists his most recent relevant experience as occurring in 1973.  You don’t bring him in for an interview. Is it gender discrimination? Beyond that, if he says that he is the most qualified candidate — do you have to hire him? And if you don’t hire the most qualified person, is that evidence of gender discrimination? No to all three, says one recent federal court decision. The decision by the court was quietly released late last month and might otherwise go unnoticed, but it underscores an important point for employers. In the matter, the Plaintiff argued that the employer discriminated against him because of his gender by denying him the opportunity for a job interview.   The employer chose four female and two male candidates for interviews. The Plaintiff argued that he was more qualified than the female candidates who were interviewed and ultimately hired by the employer. The court said, however, that the...

It was only a few years ago that the phrases “unconscious bias” or “implicit bias” started making the rounds in the legal community. I can trace the discussion on this blog to a 2014 guest post from a former law professor of mine, Kim Norwood, who talked about it in the context of her own experiences here.  I also talked about it in the context of a 2014 study that showed that married men with stay-at-home wives had negative attitudes towards working women.   Implicit bias has gained steam over the last several years. Indeed, Professor Norwood came to our firm in 2015 to give a presentation on The Mischief Biases Play in Law and the Legal Profession.  Suffice to say, it was well received and she was asked back again for a further presentation. All of this is a precursor to what I think may be the biggest development thus far in the mainstreaming of the “implicit bias” theory and training. Earlier this week, Starbucks announced that it w...

Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee (by a 25-16 vote) approved of Senate Bill 132, being labelled by it’s proponents as the “Time’s Up” bill but covers both harassment and discrimination cases. I covered an announcement of this a while back.   As the bill moves closer to consideration now to the state Senate, it’s time for employers to start paying attention to what’s in the bill.  The CBIA has expressed concerns about some aspects of the bill. Here are a few highlights: To require employers to provide every employee with information concerning the “illegality of sexual harassment and remedies available to victimes of sexual harassment”. To require employers of  three or more employees (currently set at 50) to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training and with such training being provided not just to supervisory employees, but  all employees. To eliminate affirmative defenses that employers oth...

By now, you may have read about yesterday’s decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Connecticut is in that federal circuit (along with New York and Vermont).  You can download the decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., here. (You’ve been warned though — there are 163 pages to the various opinions!) The decision talks a lot of “associational discrimination” and other academic theories of proving a case under Title VII; that’s beyond the practical aspects of this blog for employers but practitioners in the area should review the decision as a whole. So what IS the practical impact on Connecticut employers?  Not as much as you might first think. Connecticut state law already bars employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, last year, I wrote that the debate over whether federal law includes a bar against discrimination on sexu...

Last week, I posted about a proposed Governor’s bill that would expand the training requirements for some employers. However, that appears to be just a small part of a wider political battle that is about to be raised. Yesterday, a group of Senate Democrats proposed, according to a handout, the “Largest Overhaul in Modern Connecticut History of Sexual Harassment Laws” that would significantly alter the landscape for nearly all Connecticut employers. They’ve titled their proposal the “Time’s Up Act: Combating Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault”.   The bill has yet to be drafted, but the outlines are being shared by Senate Democrats and will be pursued first in the Judiciary Committee (not the Labor & Public Employee Committee as you might expect). According to their handout, the proposed bill will contain the following relating to discrimination or harassment laws: Require that any notice of sexual harassment remedies and policies...

My partner Gary Starr returns with this pre-Thanksgiving tale that seems appropriate not for the holiday, but for the headlines of late.  Happy Thanksgiving and stay out of trouble. Another day, another celebrity figure accused of harassment. Or worse. Many of the accounts reveal the abuse of power and the lack of respect shown to women.  A recent case adds another aspect to the ways in which harassment or discrimination against women may occur.  While the case is out of New York, the scenario is one that has applicability in states like Connecticut. The basic facts: A chiropractor hired an attractive yoga and message therapist to his office staff. While he oversaw the medical aspects of the business, his wife served as the chief operating officer. During the therapist’s six months of employment, she described her relationship with the doctor as professional. His wife, however, was disturbed by her presence. Within 3 months, the chiropractor commented...

Recently, I had the opportunity to see  Rags,  a new revival now running at the classic Goodspeed Opera House. I don’t often do theater reviews on this site, but I give it a thumbs up. The musical tells the story of Jewish immigrants coming to the Lower East Side just after the turn of the century. They experience outright discrimination and difficult working conditions. So much so, that they end up even participating in a labor strike asking for better working conditions. Of course, as an employment lawyer, I’m always looking for a good story to relate. The musical obviously has undertones of today’s political environment, where refugees are facing barriers to entry from certain countries. Workplace laws actually limit what employers should be asking in the interview process about immigration status.  And even when a Form I-9 is being process, an employer cannot reject valid documents or insist on additional documentation too. And it can’t target ...

So a few weeks back, I suggested that we were entering into a new era of sexual harassment cases and wondered out loud when the statistics would back up my observations. We now have our first signs.  Maybe. In my exclusive continued look at the case statistics from the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, we can see the first signs of an increase. But as I’ll explain below, it’s difficult to know if this is a statistical anomaly. Despite significant drops in most types of discrimination complaints, the number of sexual harassment complaints in Connecticut went up last fiscal year to 145, up from 135 the year before. As a percentage of overall claims, sex harassment employment claims are just 3 percent of the overall claims filed, up from 2.5 percent the prior year. But here’s the issue: When you look back at prior fiscal years in 2014 and 2015, the number of sex harassment claims is still below those years. In other words, is it a trend u...

With Memorial Day coming up this weekend, it’s often a time (or it ought to be a time) to reflect on the sacrifices made by our military.  And at the same time, consider how we, as a society, treat our veterans. This issue was highlighted for me many years ago.  During a court proceeding in which fraudulent behavior of the witness was being discussed, the witness brought up his past military service, perhaps as a way to seek leniency from the court. To my surprise, rather than dismiss the comment as outright pandering to the court, the judge took a few minutes to express appreciation to the witness for his service and to note that the judicial system should be sensitive to the needs of veterans. The court didn’t rule in favor of the witness but I was still struck by the judge’s sensitivity.  It was a learning moment for me that all of us involved in the legal system ought to treat veterans in a similar way — with, at a minimum, recognition for...

Last night, I had the honor of being elected as Chair of the James W. Cooper Fellows Program of the Connecticut Bar Foundation, after serving for a year as Vice-Chair and Chairperson of the Fellows Education & Program Committee. The Fellows are comprised of outstanding Connecticut lawyers, judges, and teachers of law; the Fellows put on a variety of programs during the year including symposia, roundtable discussions and mentoring programs for high school students. At the annual dinner, I sat next to and talked with the Keynote Speaker for the evening, Teresa Younger, who is currently President & CEO of the Ms. Foundation — the Foundation started by icon Gloria Steinem. Those of you with memories here in Connecticut may remember that she was Executive Director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women and Executive Director of the CT Chapter of the ACLU, before leaving to go to the Ms. Foundation. I’ve met her several times — each time, I’m l...

Lawyers love their cocktail chatter. And at a recent bar event, an interesting hypothetical came up among lawyers: Suppose an employee is trying to get pregnant and is thinking about infertility treatments.  She’s considering time off for rest, and perhaps even for some in vitro fertilization (IVF) appointments. Perhaps even the doctor has said that the employee needs “light duty” work during certain days.   Maybe things are a little more hazy; suppose the employee just says that they are undergoing infertility treatment and needs some time off. Is the employer obligated to provide such an accommodation? The answers aren’t entirely clear. Let’s go through some of the laws that may be implicated: FMLA – As Jeff Nowak discussed in a 2015 post on the subject in his excellent FMLA Insights blog, the FMLA regulations do not “specifically address” IVF and thus it’s an open question whether the FMLA would apply. One court tha...

One of the benefits of writing a blog as long as I have is that you get to track the progress of a law or legal development over a number of years. It was back in 2012, for example, that I first provided a comprehensive summary of a new medical marijuana bill that was making it’s way through the legislature. And I was quick to note that the law had enough questions attached to it that employers would be wise to spent a late night or two studying all of the quirks. Now, years later, we have the first case to look deeply at the statute. And for employers, the answers are becoming clearer. My colleague, Chris Engler, recently recapped the case in a post on my firm’s sister blog. The plaintiff in the case had applied for a job with a health and rehabilitation facility. The plaintiff ultimately received a job offer, subject to completing a background check and a drug screen. Prior to the drug screen, the plaintiff informed the company that she was a qualifying patient who used me...

Last year I talked about how the new era of sexual harassment claims was coming.  The open question was: Would the number of claims actually increase? The answer to that is now known: Yes. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its preliminary data regarding workplace harassment today. And it’s findings shouldn’t be a surprise if you’ve been paying attention. Among the notable pieces of data: Charges filed with the EEOC alleging sexual harassment increased by more than 12 percent from FY 2017. The EEOC recovered nearly $70M for victims of sexual harassment through administrative enforcement and litigation, up from $47.5M in FY2017. Reasonable cause findings in harassment claims increased to nearly 1200, up from 900 in FY 2017. And public interest is skyrocketing: The EEOC’s website traffic to its sexual harassment page more than doubled in the last year. In Connecticut, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities hasn’t yet rele...

Now that Thanksgiving is in the past, it’s time to look forward to the future. Well, not before getting a recap of everything that transpired in employment law in the last year. Or at least everything that we can fit in an hour long seminar. The webinar that broke attendance records last year is back again on December 4, 2018 at noon ET. This year, five employment law bloggers are presenting the “Best-Ever Year-End Employment Law Review that Five Employment Law Bloggers Have Ever Presented” webinar.  Registration is just $25 and it’s eligible for CLE/SHRM/HRCI credit. All that is needed is to sign up here.  The presenters this year are: Robin Shea, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete Kate Bischoff, tHRive Law & Consulting Jon Hyman, Meyers Roman Eric Meyer, FisherBroyles Jeff Nowak, Franczek Radelet Daniel Schwartz, Shipman & Goodwin Among the topics that you can surely expect to hear about: #MeToo, LGBT discrim...

The so-called “Time’s Up” bill that would make major changes to the sexual harassment and discrimination laws in the state — including adding new training requirements — went through final passage at the House on Saturday.  But don’t start changing your policies just yet. Various news outlets are reporting that a “fix” bill — that is, a bill that will make changes to the original bill — is set to be released today (Monday).  The backers are trying to find another bill — a “vehicle” — where these fixes can be added on to. What’s going to be changed? As of early Monday morning, it’s still unclear.  However, if you want a recap of what’s already passed, see my prior post here. Regardless, the bill that has already passed will require employers to give all employees at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training; the CHRO will be tasked with coming up with a vide...

Senate Bill 3, titled “Combatting Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment” has been modified since first introduced and passed the Senate late last week.  Despite the title, the bill would impact every discrimination case filed in the state and would make significant changes to the sexual harassment prevention training requirements. It is awaiting a vote in the House and now’s the time for employers to see the major changes being proposed. Let’s wait to see what final passage looks like but as it stands right now, here are the key changes: The bill expands sexual harassment prevention training to cover all employers who have supervisors and non-supervisors for employers with 3 or more employees.  The CHRO is to develop free, online training that employers can use.  Training must be updated every ten years by employers. Employers will be required to send a copy of a Sexual Harassment Policy via e-mail to its employees or post on its website if employe...