Rojgar Job News

One of my colleagues, Mike Chase has, for the last several years, been tweeting at “Crime a Day” about the various federal criminal laws and regulations that we have. Or rather, the thousands upon thousands of them. In fact, Mike has now put out a great book “How to Become a Federal Criminal” that is the perfect beach read or birthday gift.  The point Mike likes to make is this:  Congress has been so careless in giving lawmaking authority to federal agencies that in the process it has created an incoherent and largely accidental body of criminal law.  Recently, I wrote about how it will now a violation of the state’s employment law to discriminate against someone because of their status on the Civil Air Patrol.  Pretty random, right? It may only impact a few employers, but it’s just another one in a long series of laws that employers need to follow in this state.  It really got me thinking — how many  employmen...

It’s been a long while since this blog went into the toilet.  But in this Employment Law Checklist Project, there are two employment laws we need to tackle together that highlight the very specific nature of some laws and how they remain on the books. Yes, I’m talking about the two employment laws that require toilets in two industries. The first of these is Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-36. It provides that: The commissioner shall have authority by order to that effect to require the proprietor of any foundry in which ten or more persons are employed, situated in a locality where there is such system for the disposal of sewage as to make such order practicable, to provide for the use of such employees a toilet room of such suitable dimensions as said commissioner determines, containing washbowls or sinks connected with running water, with facilities for heating the same, such room to be directly connected with such foundry building, properly heated, ventilated and protected...

One of the quirks of discrimination law in Connecticut concerns sexual orientation.  Back in 1991, the General Assembly passed a wide-ranging bill that added sexual orientation as one of the protected classes that employers could not base decisions on. Sort of. Rather than add sexual orientation to the key employment law statute that bars discrimination in employment, it created it’s own separate law.  While there may have been reasons for such a distinction nearly 30 years ago, it still a bit strange that we still do it this way. Notably, civil unions are still covered here even though same-sex marriages are now legal. So on to the next law in our Employment Law Checklist Project (#emplawchecklist).  You can find this one at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-81c (and related statutes.)  It states, in its relevant part: It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) For an employer, by himself or his agent, except in the case of a bona fide occ...

One of the reasons I’m working on this project is to highlight the mandates and requirements that employers in the state need to follow. Some can lead to possible litigation; some can lead to, well, something less. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51jj is an example of the something less. The key language of the provision is as follows: An employer shall notify an employee of an incoming emergency telephone call for the employee if the caller states that the emergency involves a member of the employee’s family or  a person designated by the employee in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1-56r [typically someone with the power to make decisions, like healthcare, over another.] It shall not be a violation of this section if the employer proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she made reasonable efforts to notify the employee of the emergency telephone call.  The failure of an employer to comply with any provision of this section shall be an infraction...

In my new series (you can read the background here), I’m going to highlight an employment law that employers in Connecticut need to follow. Some of them can lead to lawsuits; some may just lead to fines.   I’ve titled this the “Employment Law Checklist Project”. First up: Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40h.  This law states: No employer, including the state or any political subdivision thereof, shall condition the employment, transfer or promotion of any individual on the sterilization of such individual. What we’ll start to see from looking at these laws is that the definition of an employer can sometimes change and there are differences in the type of recovery that can be sought for violations. Scope: All employers, including the state. No limit on number of employees and there is no specific definition of employer here.  Contrast that with Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40j (which follows this law), and you’ll find an actual definition of ...

The laws regarding the protections owed to pregnant employees got far broader a few years back. In fact, the statutory provision prohibiting discrimination against pregnant employees has  eleven key items. Rather than tackle them in separate posts, we’ll “super-size” this post to cover it all. The main law is set forth at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-60(b)(7), though it is to be read in conjunction with the state’s broad anti-discrimination laws. The key prohibitions state that it shall be a “discriminatory employment practice” for an employer (or the employer’s agent): (A) To terminate a woman’s employment because of her pregnancy; (B) to refuse to grant to that employee a reasonable leave of absence for disability resulting from her pregnancy; (C) to deny to that employee, who is disabled as a result of pregnancy, any compensation to which she is entitled as a result of the accumulation of disability or leave benefits accrued pur...

At our Shipman & Goodwin Labor & Employment Law seminar last week, one of the hot topics that got attendees talking was about minimum wage & overtime rules — both of which are in the midst of change. But my fellow partners brought up another law in that discussion that shouldn’t be overlooked.  And that provides a nice entry way into this week’s Employment Law Checklist Project #emplawchecklist. The law is set forth at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-40z. The key prohibitions are set forth in subsection (b) as follows: No employer shall: (1) Prohibit an employee from disclosing or discussing the amount of his or her wages or the wages of another employee of such employer that have been disclosed voluntarily by such other employee; (2) Prohibit an employee from inquiring about the wages of another employee of such employer; (3) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that denies the employee his or her right to disclose or discuss the amount of ...

How many days in a row can an employee work? That’s the question we’ll tackle in this installment of the Employment Law Checklist Project. #emplawchecklist It’s actually a question I first asked right before Yom Kippur twelve years ago so it seems appropriate to revisit this today with the holiday this week. The short answer is actually 12 — even though the law seems to suggest 6. And even 12 may not be the right answer. Details below. The state law on the subject can be found in a section that looks to be unrelated to all the employment laws we’ve been covering: Conn. Gen. Stat. 53-303e.  Wait, isn’t that in the criminal code?  Why yes it is. It’s in the section that relates to the state’s blue laws — some of which were overturned many years ago.  But this particular law was revised in 2013 to update it to comply with a court ruling on the subject. What’s it say?  Well the key provision is as follows: ...

Somewhere, some employer might be thinking: Hey, why don’t I make employees sign a promissory note to pay me back if they leave before six months! That would be a great idea! It would also be against the law. Thus, the next installment of the Employment Law Checklist Project #emplawchecklist.  The law is set forth at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51r. The key prohibitions are set forth in subsection (b) and (c) as follows: (b) On or after October 1, 1985, no employer may require, as a condition of employment, any employee or prospective employee to execute an employment promissory note. The execution of an employment promissory note as a condition of employment is against public policy and any such note shall be void. If any such note is part of an employment agreement, the invalidity of such note shall not affect the other provisions of such agreement. (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit or render void any agreement between an employer and an employee (1) requiring th...

A few weeks ago, I talked about the impact that a public health emergency might have on employers and the statute addressing such emergencies. Today, Governor Ned Lamont invoked those provisions in declaring a public health emergency. But in doing so, he also invoked another provision, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 28-9 –– the civil preparedness emergency statute. And it’s that provision that — potentially — gives him broad powers unlike any that we see in normal times. The key provision here is Section 28-9(b)(1) which states, in part: Following the Governor’s proclamation of a civil preparedness emergency pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or declaration of a public health emergency pursuant to section 19a-131a, the Governor may modify or suspend in whole or in part, by order as hereinafter provided, any statute, regulation or requirement or part thereof whenever the Governor finds such statute, regulation or requirement, or part thereof, is in con...