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
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.