This week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed an earlier Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and held that courts may not decide a question of arbitrability when parties have contractually delegated that question to an arbitrator. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272 (U.S. January 8, 2019).

While on its

Payroll is an important function for both employers and employees alike, and unfortunately, mistakes can happen during the payroll process.  When an employee is underpaid, they often are quick to bring it to the employer’s attention.  In our experience, though, when the mistake is in the employee’s favor, it often goes unfixed until the employer

Presumably in response to some well-publicized reports of public employees fired for official misconduct and walking away with generous pension benefits, the Connecticut Legislature passed a decade ago a statute authorizing pension reduction or revocation in such circumstances. Although the law has been utilized in a few situations since then, two recent cases demonstrate that

Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”) apply to all public employers regardless of how many employees they have, or does it only apply to public employers with at least 20 employees? This is the question that was argued at the Supreme Court on October 1, 2018 in Mount Lemmon Fire District v.

Attention to detail makes a big difference when employers are required by law to do specific things.  The failure to meet all the requirements of a statute can result in litigation and potentially costly judgments.  One statute is particularly detailed and requires absolute attention to detail – the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  That law governs

At the same time the Legislature made medicinal marijuana legal in Connecticut, it also passed a statute that addressed the use of medicinal marijuana by employees.  That statute, § 21a-408p, provides that:

  • No employer may refuse to hire or may discharge, penalize, or threaten an employee solely on the basis of their palliative use

On June 27, we issued an alert concerning the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME (June 27, 2018). There, the Court held that mandatory agency fees (also sometimes known as service fees) for public employees violate the First Amendment rights of the affected employees. We wish now to follow up

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court today ruled that provisions requiring public employees to pay agency fees violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly overruled its own 41-year-old precedent.

This closely watched case arose from a challenge by an Illinois public employee to the

On April 25, 2018, a Connecticut state court judge issued a decision giving a more expansive definition to the term “discipline” as it is used in Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51q (“Section 31-51q”). In doing so, the Court departed from the majority of previous state court decisions addressing this issue.

Section 31-51q prohibits an employer