Connecticut Labor and Employment Law Journal

Connecticut Labor and Employment Law Journal

Representing Employers

Are Your Employees Saving for Retirement? The Conversation You Should be Having

Posted in Employee Benefits, Uncategorized

As an employer, you’ve worked hard to put together an attractive benefits package – vacation, insurance, retirement benefits, and maybe even some unusual perks.  But many benefits go unutilized or underutilized, and retirement benefits requiring employee involvement are no exception.  As defined benefit plans – pension plans that provide a set amount of income in retirement – are on life support due to economic factors, most private employers have turned to defined contribution plans (such as 401(k) plans) as an alternative, and many public employers are following suit.  A defined contribution plan is one in which a certain amount or percentage of money is set aside each year by an employer for the benefit of the employee, but how much the employee gets in retirement is determined by market forces.  For employees to have a secure retirement on a defined contribution plan, they need to decide early that they will participate, save early, and invest wisely.  Employers can – and often should – encourage employees to make the most of this benefit so employees and their families are more likely to have their money last in retirement.

Retirement planning should be a matter of attention for employees at any age.  Millennials are entering the workforce in larger numbers, often saddled with crippling student loan debt and struggling to live independently and start families.  These employees may feel they have the least opportunity and incentive to save – their earnings are at the low end of the spectrum due to inexperience and retirement is decades off.  But employers can talk to millennials about the importance of developing a habit for saving and the exponential benefits of compound interest.  Mid-career employees have higher incomes, but may be paying off mortgages and putting children through college.  Employers can encourage these employees to consult with a financial planner (sometimes available as part of the 401(k) plan) to discuss balancing these demands and adjusting their investment portfolios to take on the right amount of risk for their life situations.  As employees near the end of their careers, employers may want to remind them that federal law allows those age 50 and over to make “catch-up contributions” to ramp up their savings.  Employers should steer clear of exerting pressure on employees or offering specific investment advice.

Having the retirement conversation can be beneficial for employees and employers alike.  Employers have the opportunity to show their employees that they care about their long-term financial wellbeing and that they are engaged in helping them succeed.  Financial pressures are a major source of stress for employees, so helping them succeed in this area may lead to a healthier and more productive workforce.  If you match employee contributions or offer profit-sharing contributions, make sure to remind employees of this valuable benefit.  A word of caution to those with employees earning around minimum wage or engaged in wage disputes – employees may not take kindly to such shows of concern if they feel they are underpaid or are not paid enough to afford today, much less the future.  Employers should also take care to avoid coming across as paternalistic.  Finally, employers should avoid stereotyping or making assumptions when speaking with employees.  For example, it would be unwise to assume that an older employee with no children has no financial demands and is therefore prepared for retirement.

What if you do not currently offer a retirement plan and cannot or choose not to do so?  Employees can still contribute to individual retirement accounts (IRAs) provided they meet federal eligibility requirements.  In addition, a new federal retirement account called the myRA is available to those without access to a retirement plan at work and can be funded through payroll deductions.  The myRA has no fees, is easy to understand, and carries no risk of loss.  A limitation to the myRA is that while it functions well as a starter account, it is unlikely to be enough for employees to retire in comfort as there are no participant options for investments and the elimination of risk means these investments are not designed for significant growth.  Balance caps provide another limitation, although many employees will become eligible for employer-sponsored plans long before reaching those caps.  Therefore, the myRA may be a good option for employees who value security over growth.  The myRA is a new option designed to deal with an epidemic of inadequate retirement savings.  States are tackling this problem as well.  Connecticut is exploring a program to mandate that most employers offer retirement plans, so employers should stay tuned for new developments.

Employers can help employees become aware of their options when it comes to retirement to help solve this national crisis while boosting employee relations at the same time.  This is an opportunity that should not go to waste.

Rebecca Goldberg, an Associate at Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C., is a labor and employment attorney advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship.  She regularly advises small to large businesses with everyday human resources questions and concerns, providing clients with cost-effective ways to avoid litigation exposure.  She can be reached at 203-882-4105 or


Christopher Sugar Honored at Westfair Communications’ First Annual “Milli” Awards Ceremony at Chelsea Piers

Posted in Uncategorized

Pictured are Honoree Christopher Sugar (left) with Associate Rebecca Goldberg (center) and Senior Partner Floyd Dugas (right) from Berchem, Moses & Devlin P.C.’s Labor and Employment Law Department at the Milli Awards

Millennials in Fairfield and Westchester counties are running their own businesses, making an impact through volunteer work and contributing innovative ideas to transform companies. Westfair Communications celebrated 22 young professionals ages 21 to 34 at the first Milli Awards on Nov. 17 at Chelsea Piers Connecticut in Stamford. Congratulations to Berchem, Moses & Devlin P.C.’s award winner, Chris Sugar!

Chris Sugar is a highly accomplished attorney who is already a leader in his field at the age of 34. He practices in the areas of labor and employment law; litigation; and alternative dispute resolution, with an emphasis on organization, collective bargaining, grievance arbitration and labor and employment disputes. Chris has developed extensive experience representing large Connecticut municipalities, boards of education and housing authorities during labor arbitrations and unfair labor practice proceedings including before the Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, the Department of Labor, and the Board of Review. He has experience defending a variety of employers against administrative charges and judicial proceedings alleging discrimination and retaliation including before the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chris also defends appeals brought under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act.

Part of what makes Chris so successful is his effectiveness using social media to inform people about important changes and updates in the law, an area that many older lawyers are afraid to venture into. He has his own Twitter account,, where he communicates regularly with clients, other attorneys, and people who are seeking information about issues they are interested in relating to labor and employment law. Chris also contributes to this blog regularly.

Chris Sugar is a leader in his field. He was recently appointed to the Education Law Executive Committee of the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA), and has been the Chair of the Bridgeport Bar Association Young Lawyers Section since 2013. He volunteers through the CBA’s Young Lawyers Section by reading to elementary school students in the Bridgeport school system every year. He is also deeply involved with homeless advocacy. Chris is a true Millennial Hero!

Click here to read a recent article about the Milli Awards, printed in the Fairfield County Business Journal and Westchester County Business Journal.

Portion of Affordable Care Act Requiring Automatic Enrollment for Some Employer Plans Repealed

Posted in Employee Benefits, Employer Policies

Since the Affordable Care Act’s enactment in March, 2010, employers with 200+ employees have been awaiting the implementation of regulations that would explain the automatic enrollment rule.  Employers with 200+ employees would have had to enroll employees in the company health care plan automatically, while allowing them the option to decline coverage.  Most employer plans work the opposite way – employees must affirmatively elect to participate.  On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed into law a bill that eliminated this requirement for employers.  Employers may, however, choose to automatically enroll employees (subject to state laws governing payroll deductions).  The repeal of this provision of the Affordable Care Act simplifies the administrative process for employers and ensures that employees do not end up with unwanted and/or duplicative health benefits by virtue of their failure to opt out.

Our team of labor and employment attorneys can assist you in designing legally compliant employee benefit plans and other labor and employment law compliance issues

Connecticut Mandates Sexual Harassment Training for Supervisors – Are You in Compliance?

Posted in Employer Policies

Employers with 50 or more employees in Connecticut must provide sexual harassment training to supervisors within six months of the individual assuming a supervisory position.  While other employers are not mandated to provide such training, it is strongly encouraged to do so. Refresher training is encouraged, but not required.  It is also beneficial to provide sexual harassment training to non-supervisory employees, although the content of the training should be tailored to the audience.  Supervisory employees should be told the extent of liability that may be incurred by the employer for successful harassment claims; employers probably do not want to instruct rank-and-file employees how to sue and collect significant damages.

Regulations of the Connecticut Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities require that the sexual harassment training contain certain specific elements.  Therefore, it is best to have a Connecticut employment attorney provide the training, rather than purchasing a generic training program.

Employers may also wish to include content on other types of harassment (such as harassment based on age, race, disability, or religion) and bullying, either as part of the training or as a separate program.  Unfortunately, bullying is a problem in many workplaces.  While it is harder for an employee to successfully sue an employer for bullying or harassment that is not based on a legally protected status, such conduct creates a significant drain on employers due to poor morale, the need to investigate and respond to complaints, and increased absenteeism.  Recently, our practice has seen a rash of requests for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act for anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder purportedly stemming from workplace interactions.

Everyone benefits when the workplace is a civil and safe place to be.  Employers should be sure to meet and preferably exceed the training requirements imposed by law.

Our team of labor and employment attorneys offers training on all topics affecting the workplace and can help customize programs to meet your unique needs.

Two Significant Changes to Law Surrounding Internships

Posted in Employer Policies, Wage & Hour

Connecticut employers need to be aware of two significant changes in the law surrounding internships.

The first is a new state statute including unpaid interns in the protections afforded to employees with respect to discrimination and harassment.  This law goes into effect on October 1, 2015.  Employers should update their handbooks and training materials to ensure that interns receive the same protections as employees with respect to discrimination and harassment.  They should also ensure that internship opportunities are not advertised in a manner that would discriminate against members of protected classes.  (Last year, the New York City Council made a similar amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law.)

The second change is the recent Second Circuit decision in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures.  This decision makes it easier for for-profit employers to meet the requirements for an intern to be unpaid.  The U.S. Department of Labor has taken the position that an intern may only be unpaid when all parts of a six-part test are met.  The Second Circuit held that this test should be replaced with a more flexible “primary beneficiary test” to assess whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship.  The Second Circuit then provided a list of seven non-exhaustive considerations that should be applied by “weighing and balancing all of the circumstances.”  In other words, the test provides some guidelines, but it is not necessary for all of the factors to be met in order for an intern to be unpaid and courts may consider other relevant evidence as appropriate.  The factors are:

  1. The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.
  2. The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands‐on training provided by educational institutions.
  3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
  4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.
  5. The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
  6. The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
  7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

The Second Circuit’s decision covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.  Employers in other jurisdictions are subject to decisions within their jurisdictions and/or the Department of Labor’s six-part test.  Also, until the Second Circuit’s factors are used in more decisions allowing for some level of predictability of outcome, employers should take a conservative approach when determining whether interns must be paid.  If in doubt, paying the intern at least minimum wage and complying with all applicable employment laws is the safest course of action.

While employers must still remain wary about hiring unpaid interns, the Second Circuit decision enhances the options available to employers who desire to use interns.  The new Connecticut statute, while creating a new avenue of liability for employers, is unlikely to have a significant impact on employers’ practices.   Our team of labor and employment attorneys can assist you in reviewing these issues to ensure your use of interns is legal.

New Connecticut Law is Double Trouble for Employers

Posted in Employer Policies, Uncategorized, Wage & Hour

Wage violations are about to get more costly for Connecticut employers.  A new statute, effective October 1, 2015, requires courts to award double damages plus court costs and attorneys’ fees if an employer has failed to pay an employee’s wages (including minimum wage and overtime owed), accrued fringe benefits, or arbitration award.  The new law applies to all employers in the state.

Previously, Connecticut law allowed for double damages and attorneys’ fees only in cases involving bad faith, arbitrariness, or unreasonableness on the part of the employer.  Now the burden is shifted.  Double damages can be avoided only if an employer can establish it acted in good faith.  While good faith is not defined, under federal law it requires that the employer have reasonable grounds for believing the act or omission was not a violation of the law.  It can be difficult to establish “reasonable grounds” for such a belief and, at a minimum, the employer should be able to establish that it investigated its obligations under the law.  Consulting with experienced labor and employment counsel on your wage-and-hour practices is the best way to ensure compliance.

While most employers mean well when it comes to wage-and-hour laws, the intricacies can be extremely complicated.  Are you making payroll deductions lawfully?  Are you properly classifying your employees as exempt and non-exempt?  Employers should proactively assess their compliance with wage-and-hour laws to avoid costly audits and lawsuits.  An attorney can help you conduct a self-audit to evaluate your pay practices and correct errors before you become the subject of enforcement actions.

Our team of labor and employment attorneys can assist you in keeping up with employee pay requirements and addressing other labor and employment law compliance issues.

Connecticut Bans Employer-Enforced Pay Secrecy

Posted in Employer Policies

Connecticut lawmakers want to ensure that employees are free to discuss their wages with one another. A recently enacted law, Public Act No. 15-196, prohibits public and private employers from barring discussions about wages or penalizing employees for discussing wages. The new law, which goes into effect July 1, 2015, protects the rights of employees to discuss their own wages and the wages of co-workers who have voluntarily disclosed their wages. The law does not require the employer or any employee to disclose wages. Rather, it protects those employees who choose to discuss wages.

Notably, the new law creates a private right of action. This means that employees can sue for damages. The statute authorizes compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, punitive damages, and other legal and equitable relief in the discretion of the court. There is a statute of limitations of two years.

In many ways, this prohibition is not new. The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which applies to virtually every private employer, already prohibits employers from penalizing employees for discussing the terms and conditions of employment, such as their pay. However, the NLRA defines “employee” to exclude many members of management, while the Connecticut law contains no such exclusion. By reaching all levels of management, the new law has the potential to affect “glass ceiling” issues, as women call for equal pay at the higher levels.

Since an employer could violate the new law by maintaining a pay secrecy policy, even if it is never enforced, employers should check their handbooks to ensure no such policy exists. In addition, managers should be trained to know that they cannot shut down conversations among employees about their pay.

Our team of labor and employment attorneys can efficiently draft or update your employee handbook to ensure you are in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

A Win for Employers: Appellate Court Holds Punitive Damages Not Recoverable in Discrimination Case

Posted in Discrimination

The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in a long awaited decision, recently held in Tomick v. UPS, 157 Conn. App. 312 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015), that a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages under Connecticut’s statute prohibiting discrimination in employment, the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”).  The Court accordingly set aside the jury’s $500,000 award of punitive damages to the plaintiff, who claimed he was discriminated against because of his disability, among other claims.

Following the canons of statutory construction, the Court reasoned that punitive damages, an “extraordinary remedy”, may only be awarded if the statute expressly provides for them.  The relevant provision of CFEPA allows the court to award attorney’s fees and court costs, but not punitive damages in addition.  Other statutes, on the other hand, do expressly allow an award of punitive damages, for example, in cases of discriminatory credit practices with a cap and discriminatory housing practices.  In sum, if the Legislature had wanted to make punitive damages available to a plaintiff in the case of employment discrimination, it knew how to say so but did not.  Attorney’s fees and court costs remain available to prevailing plaintiffs.

The Tomick decision comes as a boon to employers, who have had to factor into their settlement strategies and litigation budgets the uncertainty of an enormous jury award of punitive damages.   In this very case, for instance, the jury’s $500,000 award in punitive damages was 5 times the damages otherwise awarded for the disability discrimination.  If the matter is appealed and the Supreme Court overturns the decision, an unsettled issue is whether the punitive damages should be set by the judge or the jury, the latter of which generally presents greater anxiety for defendant employers.

The Tomick case serves as a reminder to employers to review their own anti-discrimination policies.  Our firm provides guidance to employers in crafting such policies and conducts employee training on discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace.

New Law Will Restrict Employer’s From Accessing Applicants Facebook Page

Posted in Uncategorized

The Connecticut General Assembly recently passed Senate Bill No. 426 (2015) titled “An Act Concerning Employee Online Privacy.” This new law will prohibit employers from requiring employees or applicants to:  (1) provide their user name and password or any other access to an employee’s personal online account; (2) access an online account in the employers presence; or (3) accept an invite or other invitation from the employer to join a group associated with the employee’s online account.

Unless Governor Malloy vetoes the Bill (which seems unlikely) it will take effect October 1, 2015.  This Bill will apply to both private and public employers with the only exception to the pre-employment screening for law enforcement applicants

Essentially, the Act prohibits an employer from “firing, disciplining or otherwise retaliating against an employee” for refusing to provide access to their online accounts.  In addition it prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an applicant because they did not provide access to their online accounts.

To make sure employers comply, an enforcement mechanism is included which charges the Connecticut Department of Labor to investigate complaints and impose civil fines against violators ranging from $25 against applicants and $500 against employees that can increase to $500 and $1,000 for continuing or repeat violations.

Because of the increase in use of social media and an individual’s online presence, it is important that human resource and personnel directors review their current policies and advise their managers and supervisors about these changes.  Should you need one of our attorneys to review your current policies or to provide training to your managers, please contact us at (203) 783-1200.

Predictability Bill is Introduced Before the General Assembly

Posted in Uncategorized

The Connecticut House has taken up Raised Bill No. 6933 which would require employers (including public sector employers) to begin posting employee schedules at least 21 days in advance.  Employers will also be required to provide advance notice of at least 21 days if the employer changes the schedule and that these changes must be approved by the employee in writing.

Should this Bill be adopted, employers would be required to compensate employees should they change or alter the pre-posted schedule ranging from one hour (if less than 21 days but more than 24-hours) to four hours or the total number of hours the employee would have worked in the shift (if less than 24-hours).

In addition, the Department of Labor will permit aggrieved employees to file charges to recuperate wages up to three times the full amount; with half being retained by the Commissioner of Labor “for the purposes of administrating this section.”  It is no wonder that opponents are calling this bill a “predictability tax” for employers.

While the stated purpose of this Bill is “to provide stability to workers in the state…and to compensate their employees if the employer amends such schedules,” it is obvious to many who testified before the subcommittee that this Bill would pose significant administrative nightmares for employers.

We will keep you posted on this Bill’s progress.