Posts Tagged ‘House Bill’

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 »

They Did it Again: Congress Introduces Another Bill That Would Mandate Paid Sick Leave for “Contagious Illnesses”

Sunday, November 29th, 2009

Congress is at it again: they have introduced another H1N1-related bill that would require employers to provide paid sick leave to employees with “contagious illnesses.” Again, while seemingly a compassionate move on the part of Congress, employers are left to foot the bill in a time where many are already struggling financially.

Known as the “Pandemic Protection for Workers, Families, and Businesses Act,” this potential law mandates employers with 15 or more employees to provide, on an annual basis, seven paid sick days to full-time employees and a pro-rata share of paid sick days to part-time employees for the following reasons:

  • When the employee or his/her child is experiencing the symptoms of a contagious illness, which includes an absence to obtain a medical diagnosis or to obtain preventive care for the employee’s or child’s contagious illness;
  • When a health authority or health care provider has determined that the employee’s presence at work or the child’s presence in the community would jeopardize the health of others because of the employee’s or child’s exposure to a contagious illness; or
  • When the employee’s place of business or the child’s school or daycare has been closed due to a contagious illness.

Under the proposed legislation, employees have the ability to decide when to use such paid time. Employers, however, may be able to obtain medical certifications to substantiate the need for such paid time off if the Secretary of Labor decides to issue regulations allowing for such.

Employers that already provide at least seven days of paid leave “that may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions” are not required to provide an additional seven days of paid sick time. When an employer’s policy already provides for seven days of paid time off, it is unclear whether an additional seven days must still be provided when the policy does not specify the purposes for which such time may be used.

Curiously, this proposed law, like the previous one Congress introduced earlier in the month, would not apply solely to H1N1 cases and rather, defines “contagious illness” as including influenza-like illnesses such as the 2009 H1N1 virus. Employers who violate the law by interfering with an employee’s rights under this law, such as by discharging or discriminating against an employee who avails himself/herself of the law, will be liable for monetary damages.

The Act’s effective date would be 15 days from its enactment and will expire 2 years later. To read the text of the Pandemic Protection Act, click here

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Labor and Employment | 2 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 »