Rojgar Job News

With a weekend of football championships behind us, this post tackles the privacy developments that employers here in Connecticut need to run down.  Indeed, while I could just pass off two recent posts from my colleagues, it’s worth going through a progression of options. One development is for the U.S. “ patriots” , while another one lets you fly like an eagle to Europe to understand the implications that an EU regulation can have on US employers. Since my beloved New York football giants were out of it since week one, I’m going to just quarterback what you need to know and, for the sake of everyone, put the football puns on the sideline for the rest of the post. First up, the Connecticut Supreme Court last week recognized a private right of action that patients have against their doctors for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of that relationship.”  My colleagues in the Health Law group have a deta...

Quite a fun little case on TUPE this week, if you like that sort of thing (and on the upside, even if you don’t, at least it has nothing to do with COVID-19). Regulation 4(4) of TUPE states that TUPE-related changes to terms of employment are void in most circumstances.  This has long been read as applying primarily to changes which are detrimental to the employee, as such changes run contrary to the overarching principle that employees’ contract terms are to be safeguarded on a business transfer.  The acquirer of a business is therefore stuck with those terms as they existed at the point of transfer.  But what if pre-transfer those terms have been made more beneficial to the employees, with a specific eye to the transfer?  There may be two reasons for this – first, the “poison pill” to make taking on the staff such an expensive prospect that no-one will buy the business or be willing to take over a service it currently provides, or bus...