Posts Tagged ‘legislation’

Massachusetts Senate passes bill requiring employers to give time off to victims of domestic violence

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

Last week the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill that would require employers of 50 or more employees to provide up to 15 days of leave in any 12-month period to an employee if the employee or family member of the employee, is a victim of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault. “Family member” includes spouses, parents, step-parents, children, step-children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren; people “in a substantive dating or engagement relationship” who live together; people who have a child in common, even if they are unmarried or do not live together; and people in a guardianship relationship. The employee would be entitled to leave only if the leave is taken to address issues arising out of the domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault in order to seek or obtain a court order of protection, medical attention, counseling, victim services, legal assistance, secure housing, or to appear in court as a witness, attend child custody proceedings, consult with a district attorney or other law enforcement official, or other issues directly related to the domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault.

The bill passed by the Senate would allow employers to give the leave with or without pay, and employers could require employees to use up available sick time or vacation time before using the 15 days provided under the proposed law. Employers also could require employees to provide documentation demonstrating that the employee or a family member has been the victim of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault. Employers covered by the proposed law would be required to notify employees of their right to take leave under the law.

The bill has now moved on to the House of Representatives. It hasn’t yet been scheduled for debate, but it is expected that the House will take action on the bill before the July recess. We will be sure to provide any updates as they occur.

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.

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.

Proposed DOL budget includes increase in funds for “worker protection programs”

Friday, February 5th, 2010

The recently-proposed FY 2011 budget for the Department of Labor requests $117 billion in funds, including $13.9 billion in “discretionary funding.” Although the $117 billion request is less than what the DOL received last year, the DOL has requested $1.7 billion for worker protection programs, up 4% from last year.

The DOL’s proposal includes a plan to hire at least 350 employees, and more than half of them would work in investigations and enforcement. The DOL has expressed a commitment to increasing its efforts in several areas, including Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance and worker misclassification. In fact, the proposed budget includes a request for $25 million for a joint initiative between the DOL and the Treasury Department to combat misclassification of employees as independent contractors. This initiative proposes to add an additional 90 employees in the DOL’s wage and hour division as well as 10 employees to support litigation efforts by the Solicitor of Labor. The OFCCP intends to hire additional staff as well to maintain its aggressive investigation and enforcement efforts.

While some praise the administration’s efforts to enhance worker protection programs, others have suggested that, given the current state of the economy, these programs may unjustifiably burden and punish employers. It will be interesting to see how the DOL’s proposed budget compares to the budget that eventually is approved by Congress. We’ll be sure to provide updates as developments occur.

New Federal Legislation Designed to Ease the Standard in Proving Age Cases

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

Lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced legislation, which, if passed, will amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to make it easier for plaintiffs in age discrimination to prove their cases. This legislation, entitled Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination (H.R. 3721/S. 1756), is in direct response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., a case that seemingly departed from a long line of prior cases interpreting ADEA standards in the same was as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967. The purpose of this newly proposed legislation is to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in order to ensure that the standard for proving discriminatory treatment under the ADEA is no different from the standard of proof in Title VII cases.

In Gross, the court ruled that a plaintiff asserting an ADEA claim must show that “but for” age discrimination, the adverse action would never have taken place. Before this decision, prior cases allowed a “mixed motives” analysis. In other words, plaintiffs only had to show that age was one “motivating factor” in the adverse action.

Under the newly proposed legislation, a plaintiff would be allowed to establish an unlawful employment practice under the ADEA by a preponderance of the evidence if she can show that age was “a motivating factor for the practice complained of, even if other factors also motivated that practice; or … the practice complained of would not have occurred in the absence of an impermissible factor.” If this proposed legislation ultimately takes effect, it will apply to all claims pending on or after June 17, 2009, the day before the Supreme Court’s decision in Gross.

The full text of the House Bill can be accessed here, and the Senate’s bill can be accessed here.

EEOC issues proposed ADAAA regulations

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Last year Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).  The ADAAA was passed in response to Supreme Court decisions that congress felt interpreted the definition of “handicapped individual” or “disabled individual” too narrowly.  It also sought to change the previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations that defined the term “substantially limits [a major life activity]” as “significantly restricts.”  Congress stated that this definition imposed a standard that was higher than Congress intended when it passed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and it passed the ADAAA to provide “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination and clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA.”  The ADAAA explicitly instructed the EEOC to revise its regulations on the ADA to define “substantially limits” in a way that better fit Congress’ intent.

The EEOC has now issued its proposed revisions to those regulations.  Titled “Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, as Amended,” the proposed revision:

•    Provides that the definition of “disability” shall be interpreted broadly;

•    Redefines “substantially limits,” providing that a limitation need not “significantly” or “severely” limit a major life activity in order to be substantially limiting;

•    Removes any reference to the “condition, manner or duration” under which a major life activity is performed to lower the level of limitation required in order to be protected under the Act;

•    Expands the definition of “major life activities” to include “major bodily functions,” as well as activities such as reaching, bending, learning, concentrating and interacting with others;

•    Provides that mitigating measures (other than ordinary glasses or contact lenses) shall not be considered in determining whether an individual is disabled;

•    Provides that episodic impairments or impairments that are in remission are disabilities if the impairments would substantially limit a major life activity when active;

•    Removes the requirement that an individual claiming to be “regarded as” disabled show that he or she was perceived to be substantially limited in a major life activity – instead a person will have been “regarded as” disabled if the employer perceived the individual to have any impairment, as long as the perceived impairment is not both transitory and minor;

•    Provides that employment actions based on an impairment include actions based on the symptoms of an impairment;

•    States that employers need not reasonably accommodate individuals who merely are “regarded as” disabled but who do not actually have a disability; and

•    Provides that qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an individual’s uncorrected vision shall not be used unless shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The full text of the regulations is available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-22840.htm or http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-22840.pdf.  The EEOC is accepting comments from the public on the proposed regulations until November 23, 2009.  You may submit written comments to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 4NW08R, Room 6NE03F, Washington, DC 20507; by facsimile at (202) 663-4114; or online at http:://www.regulations.gov.