Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

Worker Misclassification Legislation Looming in Both Houses of Congress

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

On April 22, both houses of Congress re-introduced legislation designed to crackdown on the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. Entitled The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act, the bill will have a significant impact on employers’ current practices. If enacted, employers will be required to keep records relative to their independent contractors, specifically reflecting their status as such. Employers will also be required to provide written notice to all workers of their status as either an employee or as an independent contractor.

Additionally, the legislation would expand the Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation provision to workers who have been discriminated against because they have sought to be accurately classified. The legislation also imposes tougher penalties of $1,100 per violation for the first offense and up to $5,000 for repeat or willful violations. Furthermore, employers who misclassify workers thereby violating minimum wage and/or maximum hour provisions of the FLSA could end up paying double the amount of liquidated damages. To ensure that workers are made aware of their rights, the bill mandates the creation of an official Department of Labor “employee rights website.” The website could make filing a claim as simple as clicking on a link and filling out a form.

Under the legislation, more cooperative efforts and the sharing of information between the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service are strongly encouraged. While this bill has not yet been passed into law, employers must be cognizant of the continued focus on and the possible ramifications of worker misclassification.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Labor and Employment | No Comments »

Connecticut House of Representatives approves bill allowing employees to bypass CHRO

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

On February 16, 2010, we reported that the Connecticut General Assembly was considering legislation that would allow employees to file discrimination and harassment claims directly in state court instead of having to first file their claims with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities as is currently required. Yesterday, the House Labor and Public Employees Committee approved the legislation, House Bill 5206 – An Act Providing an Individual an Earlier Release from the Jurisdiction of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to File a Civil Action in Superior Court. The Committee has referred the bill directly to the Judiciary Committee, which has until March 29, 2010 to act on the bill.

The CHRO has opposed the legislation, expressing concerns that it will undermine the power of the CHRO and other administrative agencies to enforce the laws that they are meant to enforce. In addition, the bill has inspired an unusual alliance between labor groups and business organizations. These groups have also criticized the bill, pointing out that the CHRO often can streamline resolution of claims, reducing taxpayer expenditures and litigation costs. Furthermore, AFSCME Local 2663 views the bill as contradictory to the core principal of administrative law that if an adequate administrative remedy exists, it must be exhausted before the courts can take jurisdiction over the matter. The Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, on the other hand, believes the bill is necessary for more complex cases that the CHRO may not be equipped to resolve effectively.

The House has proposed that the bill take effect on October 1, 2010. Stay tuned for additional updates after the Judiciary Committee’s March 29, 2010 deadline for acting on the bill.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Labor and Employment | No Comments »

Connecticut Legislature Considers Bill Allowing Employees To Bypass CHRO

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

The Connecticut General Assembly is considering legislation that, if passed, would allow employees to file discrimination and harassment claims directly in state court thereby circumventing the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities altogether. The law presently requires that all discrimination and harassment claims are filed with the CHRO first. If an employee wants to pursue her claim in state court, she must then wait until 210 days have elapsed. Only then can the employee request a release of jurisdiction from the CHRO to sue in state court.

The new legislation also would significantly extend the timeframe for filing discrimination and harassment cases in state court to two years. Presently, the statute of limitations for filing a claim at the CHRO is 180 days. To read the full text of the bill, click here. We will be sure to provide updates as developments with the bill occur.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Labor and Employment | 4 Comments »

The Ricci Saga Continues: 14 New Haven Firefighters Promoted

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Just one day before Thanksgiving and in accordance with the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, the federal district court in Connecticut (Arterton, J.) ordered that the City of New Haven certify the results of the 2003 promotional examinations for the positions of Lieutenant and Captain in the New Haven Fire Department and promote 14 firefighters to these ranks.

This order does not put the Ricci saga to bed though. In fact, there are still a few remaining issues left for the court to grapple with, such as the scope of damages to be awarded to the Ricci plaintiffs. These issues are expected to be dealt with sometime early next year. We’ll be sure to keep you posted as those developments unfold.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Labor and Employment | No Comments »

Employers Beware: New House Bill Looming That Would Mandate Paid Sick Leave For “Contagious Illnesses”

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

As if it’s not tough enough for employers to survive what many economists have coined the worst economy since the Great Depression, now, Congress wants to heap another financial burden on employers: to have them provide paid sick leave to employees with “contagious illnesses.” While this may seem like a compassionate move on Congress’ part, the reality is that employers are left footing the bill in a time where many are already struggling.

Known as the Emergency Influenza Containment Act, this potential law mandates paid sick leave when an employer with 15 or more employees “directs an employee to leave work or not come in to work because the employer believes the employee has symptoms of a contagious illness, or has been in close contact with an individual who has symptoms of a contagious illness.” Employers then must provide paid sick leave to the employee for each workday the employee complies with the directive, up to a maximum of 5 paid sick days in a 12-month period. The paid sick leave would be calculated based on the employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would have been normally scheduled to work. This law would not apply to employers who otherwise offer at least 5 days of paid sick leave per 12-month period.

Curiously, this law would not apply solely to H1N1 cases and rather, defines “contagious illness” as including influenza-like illnesses such as H1N1. Employers who violate the law (i.e., direct an employee not to work and then do not pay them) will be deemed to have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and can face additional penalties. The law also would prohibit employers from discriminating against an employee who complies with an employer’s directive to leave work or who files a complaint, initiates a legal proceeding or testifies in a proceeding related to this Act.

The Act’s effective date would be 15 days from its enactment and will expire 2 years later. If the Act takes effect, the Department of Labor will issue guidelines for employers to follow. To read the text of the Emergency Influenza Containment Act, click here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Labor and Employment | No Comments »