On May 28, 2019, the New York City Council held a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to New York City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”) which would require employers to provide eligible employees with “personal time.” The bill also would provide more protections for employees, including protections against retaliation and the addition of monetary penalties for employer violations.

The most sweeping change in the new ESSTA bill would be the requirement that all employers with five or more employees, and all employers of one or more domestic workers, would be required provide 1 hour of paid personal time for every 30 hours worked. Employers not meeting this threshold still have to provide unpaid “personal time.” The maximum accrual per year would be 80 hours, and employees would be permitted to carryover up to 80 hours to the next calendar year. However, employers could prohibit the use of more than 80 hours of personal time in a calendar year.

The expanded form of the ESSTA also states that “personal time” may be used for absence from work for any reason, and that employees are not required to provide documentation supporting their use of personal time. For employers that already provide paid vacation or other paid time off as a benefit, the proposed bill does not require those employers to provide an additional 80 hours above and beyond the benefit already provided. However, the paid time off provided must be allowed for the same purposes as “personal time” is allowed under the ESSTA.
Continue Reading

The Connecticut Appellate Court ruled this week that an employee’s request for extended intermittent leave is not a “reasonable” accommodation under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. You can download Barbabosa v. Board of Education here.

The decision provides some much needed guidance to an area that has been increasingly litigated — namely whether a medical leave, above and beyond FMLA leave, is required as a reasonable accommodation.

The background on the case is fairly straightforward and might be familiar to some who have dealt with employees.
Continue Reading

Medical marijuana is once more in the news after a man was denied a position as a firefighter in Bridgeport allegedly due to his status as a medical marijuana user. The plaintiff in Bulerin v. Bridgeport, Superior Court, Judicial District of Bridgeport, Docket No. FBT-CV-19-6083042-S, alleges that the City violated Connecticut’s Palliative use of

When Chastity Jones, a black woman from Alabama, lost a job offer because she refused to cut her natural locs, she turned to the federal courts. The company told Ms. Jones that her natural hairstyle violated the company’s grooming policy because locs “tend to get messy.” In response, Jones sought the assistance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) which brought a Title VII claim against the company
Continue Reading

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