Brody and Associates, LLC • January 30, 2018
When an employee receives a jury summons in the mail, the employer too has obligations. While the employee’s absence during jury service may be inconvenient, employers are prohibited from dismissing, threatening, or coercing employees who are summoned for jury service. Employers should not even suggest the employee should try to avoid this call to duty.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • January 18, 2018
Physician practices and other health care providers respond to numerous requests for confidential patient information from patients and others. Mistakes made by employees fulfilling such requests for medical records or making similar disclosures can expose the practice to civil litigation.
Ogletree Deakins • September 28, 2017
The turning of the calendar to October in Connecticut means more than just leaf peeping and apple picking. For employers, October 1, 2017, is the date that several new laws impacting employers will go into effect. This year’s fall batch includes additional protections for pregnant employees, a new notice process for workers’ compensation claims, and clarification of the eligibility of certain professional drivers for unemployment benefits.
Ogletree Deakins • September 08, 2017
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s holding in Williams v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., No. SC 19829 (August 17, 2017) is a mixed bag for Connecticut employers. While the court held that Connecticut law does not generally prohibit an employer’s use of the fluctuating workweek method to calculate a nonexempt employee’s hourly overtime rate, it also held that a Connecticut Department of Labor wage order does prohibit its use in connection with mercantile employees, which includes retail employees.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 06, 2017
State wage regulations promulgated by the Connecticut Department of Labor prohibit use of the “fluctuating work week” method of calculating overtime pay for mercantile (retail) employees, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held. Williams v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., 326 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2017). The Court was responding to a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
XpertHR • August 30, 2017
Employers in Connecticut may not use the "fluctuating workweek" method of calculating overtime for retail employees who are paid a commission as part of their earnings, for delivery drivers or for sales merchandisers.
XpertHR • August 25, 2017
In a first-of-its-kind ruling, a federal court has held that the federal marijuana ban does not preempt a Connecticut law protecting job applicants and employees from employment discrimination based on medical marijuana use.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 24, 2017
Connecticut’s “An Act Concerning Pregnant Women in the Workplace” strengthens considerably the workplace protections for pregnant employees and applies to employers who employ at least three employees. The Act takes effect on October 1, 2017.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • July 13, 2017
A new Connecticut law significantly enhances existing anti-discrimination protections for pregnant employees. “An Act Concerning Pregnant Women in the Workplace,” (the “Act”) signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy on July 6, 2017 and effective October 1, 2017, amends the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (the “CFEPA”) to modify existing protections and add a host of new protections for pregnant employees. The Act also provides broad definitions of the terms “pregnancy,” “reasonable accommodation,” and “undue hardship.”
Ogletree Deakins • April 05, 2017
In a decision released on April 4, 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that employers cannot take advantage of a “tip credit” for delivery drivers in order to meet the state minimum wage.