Here we are again, another legislative year when the General Assembly appears determined to follow neighboring states Massachusetts and New York and pass legislation creating paid family medical leave in Connecticut.  The current proposal, which has already passed out of the Labor & Public Employees Committee, does far more than create paid family leave; it

UPS recently agreed to pay a $2M to settle a disability discrimination suit brought by the EEOC relative to its maximum leave policy. The company’s policy required “administrative separation” if an employee was unable to return to work after 12 months.  The EEOC said this inflexible leave policy violated the ADA. In addition to the $2M, UPS agreed to update its policies on reasonable accommodation to include extended leaves of absence; improve implementation of its interactive process; conduct ADA training for management; and submit reports regarding its compliance for 3 years.
Continue Reading

A pharmacist was terminated after he claimed he was unable to administer vaccinations to customers.  Christopher Stevens sued Rite Aid for discrimination, retaliation and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state non-discrimination laws.  The jury awarded him $2.6 million, including $900,000 in non-economic damages.

By way of background, Rite Aid revised the job description for its pharmacists to require an immunization certification and made administering vaccinations an essential function of the job. Stevens, who suffers from trypanophobia (fear of needles), claimed he was disabled under the ADA and requested a reasonable accommodation excusing him from giving injections.  Rite Aid determined that Stevens was not disabled under the ADA, and therefore, it was not required to offer him reasonable accommodation. Instead, Rite Aid informed Stevens that if he did not comply with the vaccination requirement, he would be terminated. Stevens was thereafter discharged for refusing to perform an essential function of his job. For full text of decision click here.
Continue Reading

I had the fortunate opportunity to speak on Wednesday with Mike Devlin to a group of in-house counsel at the Connecticut Law Tribune’s Annual In-House Counsel CLE Lecture.  The topic of discussion was recent employment law developments.  Topics included the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, NLRB trends under the Obama administration, the

The Americans with Disabilities Act was amended in 2008 (“ADAAA”) and imposed a number of significant changes, particularly as to the determination of who has a “disability” under the ADA.  The ADAAA overturned several major Supreme Court cases and caused concern amongst employers attempting to figure out how the changes would impact their obligations under

Recent developments following the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election results indicate that the NLRB will affect sweeping changes in 2011 making union organizing easier and compliance more onerous and expensive for employers. Employers face greater enforcement mechanisms, modifications to agency policies and procedures, and additional regulatory requirements under certain initiatives implemented and under consideration.