Total Articles: 3
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. • November 02, 2015
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.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 26, 2015
On June 22, 2015, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed into law a new statute that extends workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation protection to unpaid interns. Historically, it was unclear whether an individual working as an unpaid intern was protected from workplace discrimination or harassment. As a result of the enactment of Public Act 15-56, on October 1, 2015, unpaid interns in Connecticut will be provided the same protections as employees covered by the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”).
Ogletree Deakins • August 16, 2013
State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391, No. 18749 (August 6, 2013): The Connecticut Supreme Court recently upheld the reversal of an arbitrator’s decision to reinstate an employee whose employment was terminated for sexually harassing a coworker. The court determined that the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement was a violation of “clear, well-defined, and dominant” public policy against sexual harassment in Connecticut—one of the few bases upon which a court may overturn an arbitration decision. The court, quoting a Connecticut appellate court case, noted that the relevant inquiry was whether the employee’s misconduct was “so egregious that it requires nothing less than termination of the [worker’s] employment so as not to violate public policy.” While this decision arose in the context of an employer challenging an arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement of an employee under a collective bargaining agreement, the court’s decision could potentially have a greater impact given the broad language that the court used in the opinion.