Articles about Connecticut Labor and Employment Law.

On Friday, July 12, 2013, Connecticut’s Governor Dannel P. Malloy vetoed a bill that would have restricted the use of non-compete agreements in the context of mergers and acquisitions. The proposed bill, “An Act Concerning Employer Use of Noncompete Agreements,” Public Act No. 13-309 (the Act), would have voided non-compete agreements entered into, renewed, or extended when the agreement followed an acquisition or merger unless the employer provided the employee with a “reasonable period of time” (at least seven calendar days) to consider the non-compete agreement.

The Connecticut Personnel Files Act gives employees in the state the right to inspect their personnel files. Governor Dannel Malloy has signed into law significant amendments to the Act that become effective October 1, 2013. Senate Bill 910 creates a distinction between current and former employees and expedites the time and manner in which both current and former employees are allowed access to their personnel files. Additionally, written disciplinary action carries with it added requirements. Significant changes are discussed below.

On the final day of the most recent Connecticut legislative session, the General Assembly passed a bill titled “An Act Concerning Employer Use of Noncompete Agreements” (the Act). Despite the broadly worded title, the ostensibly narrow focus of the Act is to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in the context of mergers and acquisitions. Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed the Act into law on June 24, 2013. The new law, Public Act No. 13-309, will take effect on October 1, 2013.

Connecticut has added several burdensome obligations to state statutes that give employees the right to inspect, copy and rebut their personnel files. At the urging of legal aid lawyers and other employee advocates, the legislature passed Public Act No. 13-176 (the Act) despite strong opposition from organizations representing businesses. The Act amends Connecticut’s Personnel Files Act,1 which has been in effect since 1980. Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed the Act into law on June 21, 2013. The new amendments will take effect on October 1, 2013.

Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy has signed two laws expanding benefits and protections to veterans. The first would reinstate eligibility for state benefits to any veterans discharged from the armed services, regardless of discharge classification, who were denied benefits solely based on their sexual orientation (Pub. Act 13-48). The second would revise current military leave protections to employees who are members of the state armed forces who take time from their employment to perform ordered military duty (Pub. Act 13-49). The laws become effective on October 1, 2013.

In Connecticut, a private employer’s right to discipline an employee for speech made within the scope of his employment and as part of his official duties was established when the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc., 43 A.3d 111, 304 Conn. 585 (Conn. 2012). In Schumann, the Connecticut Supreme Court applied to the private sector the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S 410 (2006), which applied to public employers. In Garcetti, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employee speech that related to his or her job duties was not protected by the First Amendment.

In a much-anticipated ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that employers in Connecticut are not subject to the provisions of the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act unless they employ at least 75 employees within the state. Velez v. Commissioner of Labor, et al., Nos. SC 18683 & 18684 (Sept. 25, 2012). The decision has broad implications for employers in Connecticut.

A Connecticut state court recently found non-compete/non-solicitation agreements unreasonable and therefore unenforceable because the agreements did not protect any legitimate business interest. Creative Dimensions, Inc. v. Laberge is an unusual case in that the court found the agreements were reasonable in terms of their geographical and temporal restrictions, but nevertheless invalidated the agreements because they were inherently unfair to the employee-defendants. In reaching this conclusion, the court balanced the employee-defendants’ inability to work for 18 months against the employer’s failure to identify a protectable interest justifying the 18-month restriction.

The Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s physical disability, and provides a broad definition as to what constitutes a physical disability. While the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) explicitly forbids discrimination against employees who are actually impaired, and against employees who are “regarded as” or perceived as disabled,1 there has been disagreement between the federal and state courts in Connecticut as to whether “perceived as” disability claims are valid under the CFEPA.2 In Desrosiers v. Diageo North America, Inc.,3 a Connecticut appellate court recently resolved this disagreement, finding that the CFEPA does not authorize claims of discrimination based on a perceived, but not actual, physical disability.

The Federal Arbitration Act preempts California law disfavoring the enforcement of a class action waiver in employee arbitration agreements, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, No. B235158 (Cal. Ct. App. June 4, 2012). The Court noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), overruled California law. (For more information, please see our article, Supreme Court Strikes Down California’s Prohibition of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements.) The Court also ruled the FAA preempted the plaintiff’s claims under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Accordingly, it affirmed an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the employee’s class claims for alleged Labor Code violations and upheld a class action waiver.