Rojgar Job News

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...

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...

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...

Thursday brought still another busy day of news as increased testing in Connecticut brought a big jump in numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases.  We’re starting to hear about employers considering furloughing employees instead of simply laying them off. (Though the numbers of layoffs in Connecticut is over 54,000 — since Friday.) In general terms, a furlough that some are considering would involve setting an employee to “zero hours” in schedule and not paying him or her a salary. (There are different types of furloughs, to be fair.) Sort of like an unpaid leave of absence, if you will. But the employee would still be eligible under some health insurance plans to remain on the company plan with the company and employee still contributing the same amounts as during regular employment. This option is attractive to some because of concerns that a loss of job might result in a COVID-19 related illness left uncovered by insurance.  It also avoids the “yo...