Rojgar Job News

In years past, I’ve looked at my crystal ball, I’ve read the tea leaves and I’ve even examined my Magic 8-Ball sitting in my office.  (You never know when you need one.) I’m out of prediction-making tools. And indeed, since I started doing this, there are now national lawfirms that are offering up their predictions on employment laws. And everyone is pretty much saying the saying thing nationally: More focus on sexual harassment claims; more on pay equity;  big changes at the NLRB; more on LGBT employment law protections and still more wage/hour lawsuits. I’ll make it easy: I agree. But what’s missing is a look at the local perspective for Connecticut employers. So here are some fearless predictions for 2018 applicable to employers in Connecticut. It’s (still) the economy, stupid.  Where’s the recovery? As it turns out, Connecticut’s economy and budget are both in a bit of a mess. Unemployment has crept back up of late...

The United States Department of Labor today released new regulations that dramatically change the existing rules on when two businesses are “joint employers” under federal wage and hour laws. I’ve previously discussed the changing rules in some prior posts here and here, so you should catch up there first if this is the first time you’re hearing about it. The new rules impact so-called “horizontal” and “vertical” joint employment situations, although the DOL has changed the use of the terminology a bit. In the horizontal situation, as now outlined by the USDOL rule, the employee has an employer but another person simultaneously benefits from that work. The other person is the employee’s joint employer “only if that person is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer in relation to the employee. How do you know? The USDOL has set forth four factors on whether this other person: Hires or fires the employe...

As California employers prepare for the gradual re-opening of business, they must now take into consideration Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-62-20 executed on May 6, 2020, making any COVID-19 infection diagnosed within two weeks of an individual working outside of their home presumptively work-related. This has the effect for employers of reversing the burden of proof in workers’ compensation cases. Instead of the burden belonging to the worker to establish that they contracted COVID-19 on the job, this Order places the burden squarely on the shoulders of the employer to prove that the worker’s infection is not work-related. Importantly, however, the presumption does not apply if the employee worked from home. By its terms, the order will only apply to injuries which occur between March 19 and July 6, 2020. Covered Employees Qualified employees must either (1) test positive for COVID-19 within 14 days after performing work; or (2) be diagnosed with COVID-19...

On June 5, 2020, Illinois Governor Pritzker signed into law HB 2455, which creates a rebuttable presumption of workers’ compensation coverage for first responders and front-line workers who are exposed to and contract COVID-19. This recent legislative enactment follows the withdrawal of Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission’s emergency rule which included similar language. In enacting this legislation, Illinois becomes the latest state to create a presumption of workers’ compensation coverage specific to COVID-19 and joins Alaska, Arkansas California, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, all of which have created a presumption of coverage extending to varying sectors of employment. Unlike some states which have presumptions of coverage limited to healthcare workers and/or law enforcement, the Illinois legislation extends to all employees who are COVID-19 first responders or frontline workers. Th...