On May 19, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously held in Sabatini v. Knouse, SJC-13781, that individuals in academic settings can be held personally liable for sexual harassment under M.G. L. c. 214, § 1C. Until this decision, professors and advisors accused of sexual harassment could argue that the statute permitted suits only
If your organization uses AI or automated tools to screen, rank, or evaluate job applicants, recent developments from the Northern District of California and the Connecticut legislature deserve your attention. Out of California, Mobley v. Workday, Inc, No. 23-CV-00770-RFL, is now in its third year of litigation and continues to produce significant rulings, grappling with
A recent decision from the Connecticut Appellate Court provides employers with important guidance on disability discrimination claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA). In Stuart Hanke v. Electric Boat Corporation, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that an employee who applies for short-term and/or long-term disability benefits has not
If you manage employees, you’ve faced FMLA requests that raise questions about compliance. The American Bar Association’s 2025 FMLA litigation summary reveals four key trends that should inform how you handle employee leave.
A recurring pattern emerged in 2025: courts rejected the argument that providing an
Maybe.
In a novel decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Rutgers v. AFSCME, Local 888, that the 2020 Title IX regulations preempted the grievance procedure in a collective bargaining agreement with a state university because the grievance procedure was in direct conflict with Title IX regulations. The decision tracks the well-known principle
A challenge by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (“CBIA”) to Connecticut’s so-called “captive audience” law failed when a federal court in Connecticut found that the CBIA lacked standing to bring the claim. The decision is a setback to those challenging the law, which bars mandatory employer meetings on political and religious topics.
The decision by
In a significant decision for Connecticut employers, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services, Inc. (SC 21109) that employees must be compensated for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings on their employer’s premises. The unanimous decision establishes that Connecticut wage laws are more protective than federal law on this issue.
wo recent appellate arguments underscore the heightened judicial scrutiny facing the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) following the Supreme Court’s decision last summer, Loper Bright Enterprises Inc v. Raimondo. While courts previously granted administrative agencies such as the NLRB deference in their decision making, also known as Chevron deference, under Loper Bright, that deference is no longer guaranteed. Since the decision, employers have been patiently waiting to see what impact, if any, that ruling will have on the actions of the NLRB.
Last week, two circuits heard arguments that may reshape employer obligations and highlight the new era of judicial scrutiny of NLRB action.
Continue Reading Limitations on the NLRB’s Power: Did Loper Bright Sound the Death Knell?
Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals announced a significant change to the standard by which employers must address disability-related accommodation requests. In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, Case No. 23-665, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs suing their employers for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation no longer need to prove