Total Articles: 10
Ogletree Deakins • September 18, 2018
A Connecticut federal court judge provided further clarification for employers concerning Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA). In its second decision in Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company, LLC (Noffsinger II), the court further defined the contours of a PUMA discrimination claim, holding that federal law does not negate PUMA’s anti-discrimination protections and that certain damages are not recoverable under PUMA. This case is significant for employers because it explains the relationship between federal and Connecticut state laws concerning marijuana use and provides important guidance for employers that use drug testing in the workplace.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • September 11, 2018
A Connecticut federal court has issued another decision in the case of Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company LLC, further expanding protections to individuals who are qualified under Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA) to use marijuana. In 2017, the same court held that various federal laws prohibiting use and sale of marijuana do not prohibit employers from hiring individuals who use marijuana in compliance with state law.1 The decision, Noffsinger I, was also the first to imply a private cause of action under PUMA’s employment anti-discrimination provisions.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 06, 2018
Refusing to hire a medical marijuana user because she tested positive on a pre-employment drug test violates Connecticut’s medical marijuana law, a federal court in Connecticut has held, granting summary judgment to the job applicant on her employment discrimination claim. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 3:16-cv-01938, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150453 (D. Conn. Sept. 5, 2018).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 06, 2018
A federal court in Connecticut has held that refusing to hire a medical marijuana user who tested positive on a pre-employment drug test violates the state’s medical marijuana law. The Court granted summary judgment to the applicant on her claim for employment discrimination but declined to award her attorneys’ fees or punitive damages. The Court also dismissed her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook Health & Rehab. Ctr., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150453 (D. Conn. Sept. 5, 2018).
Goldberg Segalla LLP • July 16, 2018
The Connecticut Supreme Court is permitting a city worker in New Haven, Connecticut, to pursue a claim for retaliation before the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The city had previously fired the worker on the grounds that the worker had committed workers’ compensation fraud.
Brody and Associates, LLC • June 18, 2018
Unless you have been living under a rock these last few months, you know sexual harassment claims are on the rise in every industry. We have seen this in all echelons of government, the judiciary, national sporting leagues, entertainment, and the restaurant industry to name a few. One way employers work to combat sexual harassment and create a culture in which such behavior is frowned upon is through training. Very few states require mandatory sexual harassment training. However, in Connecticut, training is mandatory for certain employers.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • June 17, 2018
Last week, the NLRB announced that it would be issuing proposed rulemaking on joint employer standards this summer.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 31, 2018
Connecticut is the latest state to prohibit employers from asking prospective employees about past compensation. Effective January 1, 2019, employers may not ask (directly or through a third party) about a prospective employee’s wage and salary history unless the prospective employee volunteers the information.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 23, 2018
Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed Public Act No. 18-8, “An Act Concerning Pay Equity,” into law on May 22, 2018, making Connecticut the sixth state to prohibit employers from asking applicants about salary history. California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon and Vermont had previously adopted similar bans. The new Connecticut law will permit applicants to file lawsuits for damages and other remedies.
Brody and Associates, LLC • May 16, 2018
In Connecticut, if you are an employer and engage in electronic monitoring you must post a notice to employees of the monitoring. But, what is electronic monitoring?