Rojgar Job News

So, a couple of months back, I talked about how separation agreements for small employers might not be covered by the federal law that covers such agreements. After all, since the Age Discrimination in Employment Act only applied to employers that have 20 or more employees, the requirements for a “knowing and voluntary waiver” of claims under separation agreements only applied to those larger employers. Because this is a federal law, it applies in Connecticut though states are free to craft additional laws if they wish. Recently, though, I’ve heard of an employee spouting off about “advice” he received that  Connecticut state law had the same requirements as federal law did. And since Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws apply to employers of 3 or more employees, the employee argued that he should be provided with 21 days to consider the agreement. When I heard this, I scratched my, well, proverbial head about this one.  Did I mi...

The Dialogue – an occasional discussion between myself and a prominent employee-side attorney, Nina Pirrotti returns today after a late summer hiatus. Today’s chat focuses on employee separations and severance agreements.  Share your own tips or observations in the comments below. As always, my thanks to Nina for sharing her insights here. Dan: Hi Nina! How was your summer? Mine was fine except I can’t stop hearing news about President Trump. It seems to drown out everything else going on and I think I have a headache from it all. But let’s give it a try, shall we? I know I’m often confronted with having to fashion separation and settlement agreements for employers.    What do you find are the items in agreements that you think both sides ought to be paying attention to? Nina:  Drowning in Trump-related noise.  The image is horrifying!  My husband and I were chatting the other day about an old Saturday night live weekend updat...

Suppose there’s an old employment agreement between the employer and employee. Then the employer fires the employee. But there’s been a few intervening events and it’s not exactly clear that the employment agreement still applies. Indeed, there’s another contract (let’s call it an supplier agreement) that seems to provide an independent basis for ending the relationship. Nevertheless, the employment agreement contains an arbitration provision.  Are the parties still required to go to arbitration even when one party (namely the employer) argues the contract is void? Yes, says a new Connecticut Appellate Court decision called Stack v. Hartford Distributors, Inc.. (For background, the employment lawyers out there should look first at a 2007 Supreme Court case that established the strong preference to enforcement of arbitration provisions, which you can find here.  The rest of us can carry on.) For the court, it noted that the employer appears to ...

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...

As I noted earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of the use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements with employees. My colleague, Gabe Jiran, has a recap of Epic Systems v. Lewis on my firm’s blog, Employment Law Letter, that you can access here. So, it’s a foregone conclusion that employers of all shapes and sizes will start using arbitration agreements and insert provisions with class action waivers, right? Not so fast. As Jon Hyman astutely noted in his Ohio Employer’s Law Blog yesterday, this decision may not be the panacea employers are looking for. For example, it might end up being more costly for employers because arbitration may be more costly than litigation. Moreover, these costs only increase if you are arbitrating dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, of individual claims instead of one class or collective action. Don’t think for a second that this decision will end wage and hour litigation. Instead, plaintiffs’ lawyers,...

In an important 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning held, for the first time, that class or collective action waivers, particularly in wage/hour cases, and contained in arbitration agreements between employers and employees are valid and enforceable. Because wage and hour class and collective actions are quite costly for employers to defend against, this decision should cause employers in Connecticut (and nationwide) to re-evaluate their employment relationships with employees and consider enacting wide-ranging arbitration agreements that include class-action and collective action waivers. The decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (download here) was just released at 10 a.m. this morning, so I’ll have more in an upcoming post after I’ve had time to digest it, but here’s the summary from the Supreme Court itself: In each of these cases, an employer and employee entered into a contract providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve emplo...

Earlier this week, it seemed that a bill requiring employers to conduct additional training on sexual harassment matters was a no-brainer to pass the General Assembly. After all, Senate Bill 132 passed 31-5 in the state Senate and in this #metoo environment (not to mention local elections in the fall), the House looked to be a near certainty. But a lot can happen in a few days, and some of the bill’s more controversial provisions were simply too much for the bill to overcome. Thus, employers do not yet have to worry about the new training requirements and changes to the state’s anti-discrimination laws. That said, employers still need to follow existing state law regarding training of supervisors (if applicable) and should still exercise caution in dealing with cases of harassment. One bill that did receive passage late last night was Senate Bill 175, which I haven’t talked much about. That bill makes a number of changes to  government and quasi-public agencies. ...

I was going to save this post for the Yankees run into the World Series, but with the Yankees losing last night, it seems quite possible that they might not get there this year.   Employment law contracts typically are not that complex. Oh sure, they may LOOK complex but most of the time, you build them with the same building blocks. As it turns out, even baseball contacts have their own formula. Turns out it’s not that hard to find — if you know where to look. The uniform baseball contract can actually be found at the end of the collective bargaining agreement between the players association and the 30 baseball clubs which you can download here.   It’s on page 350 of the CBA so you might not have stumbled upon it, but it makes for a fascinating read because the building blocks there look different than other contracts.  So what are some interesting terms? Players are paid on a semi-monthly basis but only during the “championship season...

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...