Legal Articles, Employment
Tenured Teacher Dismissal Process and Timetable
The teacher tenure law sets out strict termination and due process requirements for teachers, whether or not they have tenure. Tenured teachers have their contracts automatically renewed from year-to-year; can be dismissed only for six statutorily specified reasons; and have the right to (1) bump untenured teachers in positions for which they are qualified if their positions are eliminated, (2) written notice of the reasons for termination, (3) a termination hearing before the board of education or an impartial hearing panel, and (4) appeal the results of the hearing to Superior Court.
Custodian’s Threat Too Severe to Justify Reinstatement, Says Court
In the case of Bridgeport Board of Education v. Nage, the Bridgeport Board of Education sought to vacate, or remove, a prior decision in favor of a former custodian’s reinstatement to a Bridgeport school. The board of education had terminated the custodian’s employment after he had mailed to various city officials a packet of materials that contained detailed descriptions of mass shooting incidents at public schools. A handwritten note concluded with the statement, “If I’m being punished for breaking the rules then we all should.”
How Does Workers Compensation Work in Missouri?
Navigating workers' compensation in Missouri? Here's the general process to guide you through your claim effectively.
Teacher Evaluations in Connecticut
Under Connecticut General Statute §10-151b, each year teachers in Connecticut must be evaluated by either the Superintendent of Schools or by someone appointed by the Superintendent. The evaluations shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, strengths, areas needing improvement, strategies for improvement, and multiple indicators of student academic growth. In the event that a teacher does not receive a summative evaluation during the school year, the teacher must receive a “not rated,” designation for that school year.
Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Against Commissioner of Department of Motor Vehicles Barred by State’s Sovereign Immunity; Plaintiff Failed to Prove Any Exceptions Applied
In a criminal law matter, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport dismissed a plaintiff’s action against the defendant Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), because she was barred under sovereign immunity doctrine from bringing suit.
Technology Company’s Non-Compete Found Enforceable on Grounds of Protecting Employer’s Interest and Commercial Operations
Xplore Techs. Corp. v. Killion, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2401
Assignability of Non-Compete Agreements Under Connecticut Law in the Event of a Merger
Neopost USA, Inc. v. McCabe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105850
Enforcing Non-Competes Associated with Sale of Company and Goodwill
Ms. Dorothy Rogers owned a hair salon in Higganum, Connecticut called Dotties Creative Cuts and entered into an agreement to sell the company’s “assets, goodwill, and client lists” to Kim’s Hair Studio, LLC for the amount of $20,000. This transaction essentially made Ms. Rogers a new employee of Kim’s hair Studio and as such, she was required to sign a non-compete agreement that prohibited her from offering competing services for twelve months after her termination within ten miles of 323 Saybrook Road, the primary work location of Kim’s Hair Studio.
Beware the Casual Employee Complaint
The United States Supreme Court had overturned long-standing law in the Federal Districts of Connecticut and New York with respect to employee claims of retaliation for registering a complaint with an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“Act”). In this case note, we will tell you how the law changed, and how employers should adopt changes in policy and procedure to protect themselves from a new and difficult-to-defend source of employment-related liability.
Legitimate Signature is Required for Enforcement of Non-Compete Agreement
In Stay Alert Safety Services, Inc. v. Fletcher, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1915, Mr. Christopher Fletcher began to work at United Rentals, Inc., a North Carolina company in the traffic safety and control industry, starting in February 2003. He signed an employment agreement upon accepting the job offer wherein the agreement contained a non-compete provision. According to the restrictive provisions, he was prohibited from working at a competing company located within two hundred miles for a period of two years after his termination.