Last Friday, the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) held that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) when it kicked union organizers out of its cafeteria who had been grabbing lunch and talking union business with a few workers. In doing so, the Board overturned
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
Join us for our annual spring seminar for public sector clients and friends, when we will address issues facing school districts, municipalities and other government agencies. The program begins with a plenary session covering a timely topic, followed by a choice of two breakout sessions allowing for issue discussion in a small setting.
When:
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
Last year, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME, resulting in numerous implications for public sector employers (you can read our guidance on the topic here). Now, several months later, we are taking a fresh look at how Janus continues to impact public employers and their relationships with
For years now, the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (DRS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have been targeting Connecticut employers for worker misclassification audits. When a misclassification is discovered, these government entities can share information about employers who have misclassified employees as independent contractors. Thus, when one of these government entities finds a misclassification during an audit, audits from the other governmental entities are likely to arise.
Continue Reading
The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) applies to small state and local government employers. In doing so, it shot down arguments made by one Arizona fire district that the law applies only to public entities of 20 or more employees. The law defines employers as
A recent Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) memorandum may help employers in finding ways to reduce workplace injuries, workers’ compensation claims, and lost time due to injuries. As outlined in the memorandum, employers will be able to carefully develop and implement safety incentive programs that reward employees for not having any reportable injuries in
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