Representing Employers
Last week the CHRO released its case data for FY 2018. Overall, the numbers do not dramatically differ from FY 2017. However, perhaps not surprisingly given the media coverage of the viral #MeToo movement beginning in October 2017, some notable increases emerged.
The increase in the overall number of complaints filed in FY 2018 rose…
Federal law requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their current and prospective employees and document their compliance using the Employment Verification, Form I-9. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) has the authority[1] to inspect and review employer’s Forms I-9 and conduct workplace raids. Employers in Connecticut and other parts of New England face a fair chance of an I-9 audit and enforcement activity in their place of business. This note covers compliance with Forms I-9.
A violation for the unlawful employment of an undocumented worker can result in the imposition of fines to employers, the arrest of employers who knowingly employ undocumented workers, and the arrest of workers working without lawful authorization for employment in the United States.[2]
Workplace Investigations – and the need for them – have been in the news a lot lately. So it seems like a good time to review some basics, such as what triggers them, who should conduct them, and why are they important.
A workplace investigation can be triggered by myriad reasons, including a complaint or report of a policy violation or other employee misconduct; employee injury; complaint filed with EEOC, CHRO, NLRB or other agency; lawsuit; or compliance audit. Upon the occurrence of any one of these triggers, the employer, often with the assistance of counsel, should assess the allegations or issues involved and make a determination as to whether an investigation is warranted. Some situations, such as alleged violations of non-discrimination laws, or workplace accidents, require an investigation be conducted.…
Continue Reading
The importance of training supervisors on how to recognize and deal with employee leave issues cannot be overstated. And here’s a painful example of why…
Grace, an employee at a group home where she provided support to residents with mental impairments, was unexpectedly hospitalized due to a mental health condition. Grace had her son call her employer to tell them that she was in the hospital and could not report to work. Grace’s son called the employer at least four times over the next week to advise that his mother was still in the hospital. He spoke with Grace’s direct supervisor, as well as the program manager and the HR department. Such notifications should have sounded alarm bells that Grace might have a “serious health condition” and may be entitled to leave under the FMLA. Which it did – sort of; an HR department staff person prepared an FMLA packet acknowledging that the employer had been informed Grace was on a medical leave. However, when Grace’s son informed her supervisor that Grace was able to speak, the supervisor became angry and said it was inappropriate for him to be calling on his mother’s behalf and told him not to call again. The supervisor did not ask the son any questions regarding Grace’s condition or whether there was something preventing Grace from calling herself.…
Continue Reading
Just before the end of the legislative session, Public Act 17-118: An Act Concerning Pregnant Women in the Workplace, passed and is expected to be signed by the Governor. Effective October 1st, this Bill amends Connecticut’s existing Pregnancy Discrimination Statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 by expanding the employment protections provided to pregnant women and requiring employers to provide a reasonable workplace accommodations unless the employer demonstrates that the accommodation would be an undue hardship. The bill also prohibits employers from (1) limiting, segregating, or classifying an employee in a way that would deprive her of employment opportunities due to her pregnancy or (2) forcing a pregnant employee or applicant to accept a reasonable accommodation if she does not need one. It also eliminates certain employment protection provisions related to transfers to temporary positions for pregnant workers.…
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
This election, seven states and the District of Columbia passed expansive marijuana laws that permitted the recreational use of marijuana or cannabinoids. This means that within these states and the District of Columbia people can openly smoke or ingest cannabis with no criminal repercussions.
While Connecticut has not embraced this libertine attitude toward marijuana use,…
Election season is here and the evidence can be viewed all around an employer’s campus: from bumper stickers on the cars in the parking lots; buttons festooned to employees; even screen savers on company computers; now more than ever broadcasting your support is easy. However, with that support may come problems for the workplace.
Connecticut’s…
On January 1, 2017, Connecticut will “ban the box” for private employers, as well as public employers. “Ban the box” laws prohibit employers from asking questions about criminal background on employment applications, with some exceptions. Such laws are becoming increasingly common in states and municipalities throughout the United States.
The new Connecticut legislation, known as…
In a decision that marks a clear departure from national case law, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently expanded the protection of employees who speak out against their employers.
In Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court as to the U.S. Constitution, ruling, in effect,…
