Shipman & Goodwin LLP
Employment Law Letter
Spring 2017

Labor & Employment Practice Group
The Employment Law Letter is published quarterly as a service to clients and friends by the firm’s Labor and Employment Practice Group. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and the advice of a competent professional is suggested to address any specific situation. Reproduction or redistribution is permitted only with attribution to the source. 
© 2017 Shipman & Goodwin LLP.   All rights reserved.
www.shipmangoodwin.com

Employee vs. Contractor Is Still a Complex Question

For many years there has been disagreement about whether or not employees who bring discrimination claims under Connecticut’s Fair Employment Practices Act can get punitive damages (not just compensatory damages for lost wages etc.) if they prevail.  Not surprisingly, employer groups have argued against such awards, while the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, as well as lawyers representing plaintiffs, have argued in favor of them.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has now settled the issue in a case involving a United Parcel Service driver who claimed his dismissal constituted discrimination based on his disability.  A jury agreed with him, and among other things awarded him $500,000 in punitive damages.  The trial judge set aside that award, and an Appellate Court panel upheld the trial judge’s decision.  On the last day of its 2016 session, our Supreme Court affirmed that result.

You would think the law was clear on this subject, but it isn’t.  It doesn’t specifically mention punitive damages, but it says a successful plaintiff may be entitled to such legal and equitable relief as the court deems appropriate, “including but not limited to” an injunction, attorney’s fees, court costs, etc.  Since punitive damages are a form of legal relief, the plaintiff argued the legislature must have intended to allow such damages.

The Supreme Court noted, however, that there are several other statutes in which the legislature specifically authorized punitive damages, thereby demonstrating that it knows how to authorize an award of punitive damages when it intends to do so.  The court declined to imply such authorization in the absence of statutory language or legislative history demonstrating such intent.

This decision does not dramatically change the employment litigation landscape because in various situations federal law permits punitive damages even where comparable state laws don’t.  However, the threat of possible punitive damages has often been used by plaintiffs’ lawyers and the CHRO to try to leverage a more attractive settlement in employment discrimination cases at the CHRO, and now that threat is gone.

Our advice to employers has always been to consider how a proposed discharge or other adverse employment action would look to an objective third party.  Situations where a plaintiff’s lawyer can paint a persuasive picture of retaliation, bias, unfairness or rush to judgment can lead a judge or jury to “throw the book” at an employer. This can happen even if the employer honestly thought it was within its rights, and even if punitive damages are not available.

When Are You Liable For Supervisory Misconduct?

We have reported more than once on cases where a well-meaning employer gets into trouble because one of its supervisors engages in discriminatory or otherwise illegal conduct.  This includes liability under the “cat’s paw” theory, where management action based on a good faith judgment is tainted by the improper motivation of a supervisor.  An example would be a reduction in force where employees affected are those with low performance ratings, but one of those ratings is made by a supervisor whose evaluation of a subordinate is negatively affected by the fact that she spurned his advances.
 
But is the employer always liable for the inappropriate conduct of a supervisor?  Not always.  A New London Superior Court judge recently tossed out a lawsuit against Walmart by an employee who was videotaped by a supervisor as she used the restroom.  The video was then posted on Facebook.  The employee sued Walmart for discrimination, negligent supervision and infliction of emotional distress.  However, the judge said that there was no evidence that the misconduct was based on gender, that the employer had reason to be aware of the potential for misconduct, or that it had any intent to harm her.
 
This case may be an exception, however.  Only a few weeks later a federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the Yale School of Medicine brought by a post-doctoral fellow who alleged sexual harassment by a professor.  The judge noted that the plaintiff had complained about the professor to her department chair, who had returned her to work in his laboratory.  The key here, of course, is that Yale had reason to be aware of the problem.
 
Our advice has always been to tackle such problems head-on, and never to sweep them under the rug or look the other way.  It is particularly important, however, to assure that this message is heard up and down the chain of command.  In the Yale case, the department head should have reported the problem to the dean of faculty, or better yet, to human resources.  It’s a message that can’t be repeated too often.

No “Tip Credit” For Delivery Drivers

The question of whether pizza delivery drivers can be paid a reduced minimum wage because they frequently receive gratuities from customers may not seem like a big deal (unless of course you’re a pizza delivery driver), but the operator of Domino’s pizza franchises in southeastern Connecticut has taken the issue all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.
 
Connecticut’s “tip credit” regulations allow for payment of less than the statutory minimum wage to “service employees” delivering food or beverages to seated patrons, because they frequently receive tips that substantially increase their compensation.  Although this credit historically has been applied only to bartenders and waitstaff, the pizza franchise operator argued that its delivery drivers perform essentially the same function, namely delivering food to customers.
 
The Labor Commissioner didn’t buy it.  Neither did a Superior Court judge nor, just a few days ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court, which devoted more than 20 pages of analysis to the issue. 
 
Interestingly, the discussion did not focus so much on the wording of the regulation as on the logic behind it. On its face, the tip credit is limited to those serving food or drink to customers seated in bars or restaurants, but neither the Labor Commissioner nor the judges stopped there.  Pizza drivers only spend a few brief moments with customers, and have little opportunity to form the kind of relationship that influences gratuities.  Most of their time is spent driving or interacting with whoever dispatched them.
 
The Supreme Court was also influenced by the fact that the tip credit regulations have been in effect for decades without challenge, and without any action by the General Assembly to change them through legislation.  So now you know you can tip your pizza delivery driver without any impact on his or her base wage rate.

Who Qualifies For UC Is Sometimes a Tossup

Employers don’t often contest decisions on whether their former employees are eligible for unemployment benefits, in part because most employers don’t pay for those benefits themselves.  When they do contest an award of benefits, it’s presumably because they feel strongly about it.  However, even in what may seem like clear cases, the outcome is anything but certain.
 
Take for instance a recent decision about a New Britain man who was scheduled for jury duty, but when it was cancelled took the day off without informing his supervisor of the cancellation.  When he was fired, he was denied jobless benefits due to willful misconduct.  However, when he took the matter to court a judge said he was entitled to benefits because his employer had no rule or policy stating that if jury duty was cancelled, the employee had to report for work.  An appellate court reversed that result, but who knows what the Supreme Court might do?
 
Maybe it’s because the unemployment rate has dropped to nearly normal, but the state also seems to be getting more lenient with regard to employees who quit work because they don’t like their working conditions.  A front page story in a recent edition of the Connecticut Law Tribune discusses the case of a nurse in a New Britain nursing home who quit when she found she would be assigned to work with paralyzed patients, which required more physical effort than working with other patients.  The history of that case is instructive.
 
When she first filed for unemployment compensation she was denied, because working with disabled patients was simply part of her job.  An appeals referee upheld the denial.  However, the Board of Review found the nurse had “good cause” to leave her job, and awarded benefits.  The employer took the matter to court, but the judge upheld the decision of the Board of Review.
 
Our opinion is that the lawyers quoted in the Law Tribune are correct, in that the state is becoming more liberal in the awarding of unemployment compensation benefits.  However, the outcome in any given case is still difficult to predict, in part because concepts like “good cause” mean different things to different people.

Legal Briefs
and Footnotes

Union Contract Helps Employer:  Who knew that having a union contract might be beneficial to an employer?  That’s what the Town of Cromwell found out when a terminated police officer filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit.  The judge dismissed the complaint because the police officer had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.  Specifically, he failed to pursue a claim under the grievance and arbitration provisions of his union contract.  Now it is presumably too late for him to do so.
 
Arbitrator Can’t Reinstate Coach:  When a New Haven baseball coach who was also a teacher failed to report improper conduct by an assistant, he was transferred to a teaching assignment in a different school, and terminated from his coaching position.  The matter ended up before an arbitrator who decided the offense didn’t warrant either the transfer or the dismissal.  The Board of Education went to court, where a judge upheld the arbitrator’s decision with respect to the teaching position, but not the coaching job.  A Connecticut statute specifically says that a challenge to the dismissal of a coach in a public school district can only be taken up with the local or regional board of education, so in this case the arbitrator exceeded her authority.
 
“Public Policy” Theory Limited:  In our last issue we reported on an employee who convinced a judge that allowing his supervisor at Schaller Auto World to accept shipments of guns at work created an unsafe workplace in violation of public policy.  That argument doesn’t always work, however.  Another judge has dismissed a claim by a special education teacher in Windham that her workplace was unsafe because her class included students with behavior issues and even criminal histories.  The judge said these risks are inherent in the employer’s mission, which she should have known when she accepted the position.
 
Retaliation Can Be Expensive:  We’ve said many times that retaliation against employees who report or claim to be the victims of discrimination can be as bad or worse than the discrimination itself.  The latest lesson involves a $5.5 million jury verdict against Walmart, including $5 million in punitive damages.  The jury found the plaintiff had not been discriminated against himself, but was targeted for termination in a RIF after complaining that Walmart was systematically eliminating African-American managers from its Connecticut stores.  The verdict will likely be trimmed through judicial review, but it’s an eye-opener nevertheless.
 
Workers Comp for Cops:  Police officers and firefighters get a special deal when it comes to workers compensation. They’re covered from when they leave their “place of abode” until they return to it.  A New Haven cop claimed that guaranteed him benefits when he left his house to go to work and walked to his car parked on the street.  He injured his back when he dropped his car keys and bent over to pick them up.  The City claimed he hadn’t yet left his abode and therefore wasn’t covered for his injury, and the Compensation Review Board agreed.  However, a divided Supreme Court has now awarded benefits, despite a dissent that said the injury occurred before the officer left his “place of abode.”

Save the Date:  

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training
May 4 or August 10, 2017
Hartford Office

Register at www.shipmangoodwin.com

Recent S&G Website Publications

Executive Orders Regarding Immigration
Published February 2, 2017

President Trump Issues March 6th Executive Order Revising Travel Ban
Published March 8, 2017

Starting May 1, 2017 USCIS Will Issue Redesigned Green Cards and Employment Authorization Documents
Published April 19, 2017

Immigration matters are changing rapidly, so we have created a page to keep our clients apprised of changes as they happen.  Please visit shipmangoodwin.com/
Immigrationupdates and sign up to receive email alerts as they are posted.

Visit our award-winning Connecticut Employment Law Blog,
www.ctemploymentlawblog.com

L&E Practice Group: 
ALYCE ALFANO
ANDREANA BELLACH
GARY BROCHU
BRIAN CLEMOW* - Editor of this Newsletter
LEANDER DOLPHIN
KEEGAN DRENOSKY
BRENDA ECKERT
CHRISTOPHER ENGLER
JULIE FAY
MELIKA FORBES
BEN FRAZZINIKENDRICK
SUSAN FREEDMAN 
SHARI GOODSTEIN 
GABE JIRAN 
ANNE LITTLEFIELD
JARAD LUCAN
PETER MAHER
ASHLEY MARSHALL
LISA MEHTA
ASHLEY MENDOZA
RICH MILLS
TOM MOONEY
PETER MURPHY
JESSICA RITTER
SARANNE MURRAY 
KEVIN ROY 
REBECCA SANTIAGO 
DANIEL SCHWARTZ
ROBERT SIMPSON
JESSICA RICHMAN SMITH
GARY STARR
CLARISSE THOMAS
CHRISTOPHER TRACEY
LINDA YODER
HENRY ZACCARDI
GWEN ZITTOUN

Questions or comments? Email bclemow@goodwin.com.

289 Greenwich Avenue
Greenwich, CT  06830-6595
203-869-5600 

One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT  06103-1919
860-251-5000

265 Church Street - Suite 1207
New Haven, CT  06510-7013
203-836-2801

400 Park Avenue - Fifth Floor
New York, NY  10022-4406 
212-376-3011

300 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT  06901-3522
203-324-8100

1875 K St., NW - Suite 600
Washington, DC  20006-1251 
202-469-7750

www.shipmangoodwin.com