Legal Articles, Employment
Five Prong Test for Non-Compete Agreement in Connecticut
Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132
Veterinary Doctor’s Non-Compete Invalidated When Terms Unreasonably Favor Employer
Merryfield Animal Hospital v. MacKay, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 4099
Excessive Geographical Restriction Invalidates Connecticut Non-Compete Between Dance Studio and Instructor
RKR Dance Studios, Inc. v. Makowski, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2295
Role of Consideration in a Connecticut Non-Compete Agreement
J. M. Layton & Co. v. Millar, 2004 Conn. Super LEXIS 2226
Test for Granting a Temporary Injunction for Breach of Connecticut Non-Compete
Group Concepts, Inc. v. Barberino, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1036
Expunging a Dirty U-5—Be Careful What You Ask For!
Expunging a Dirty U-5—Be Careful What You Ask For!
State Employee Retirement Benefits Payments are Not Exempt from Garnishment by Victims of Violent Crime
Klingman v. Winters, KNLCV020560881, 2010 WL 5493498 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2010)
Employee Files Retaliatory Discrimination Suit Against Yale University
A Yale employee filed a retaliatory discrimination suit against Yale University, in which she alleged that after Yale hired her in 1999 as a “security education coordinator” to ensure the university’s compliance with Title IX, which is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, the university ignored her solutions, responded with indifference, and cut her pay. Ultimately, Susan Burhans alleged that Yale University made it impossible to do her job, which was to “develop campus safety programs and strategies to ensure Yale’s compliance with Title IX and related laws,” according to the complaint.
Bullying in the Workplace — The Next Litigation Frontier?
The Connecticut General Assembly enacted legislation to address student bullying in the school setting. Now some states have turned their attention to bullying in the workplace. The new statutes, if enacted, would create a new cause of action for employment discrimination—bullying.
Only Connecticut Employees Count Toward CFMLA Threshold
The Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act (CFMLA) requires employers who employ 75 or more employees to provide eligible employees with 16 weeks of leave during any 24-month period for a variety of reasons, most concerning a serious health condition of a family member. The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently held that Connecticut employers are not subject to the CFMLA unless they employ at least 75 employees within the state. In this day and age of “virtual workplaces,” the decision of the Court offers certainty to employers but may deprive employees working remotely of CFMLA coverage.
