Employment Law Articles

Connecticut Law Clarifies Medical Continuation Rights Following Termination

pdf buttonClick here to download a pdf copy of this article

            Effective October 1, 2009, a new law provides guidance on employer and employee rights regarding the continuation of medical coverage following termination of employment. (P.A. 09-126). Under the new law, employers must continue to cover employees and pay its portion of the premium for 72 hours following the employee’s termination. “Employment termination” is defined as a voluntary quit, or a discharge for any reason other than layoff.

Domestic Violence Victims Gain Greater Protection

pdf buttonClick here to download a pdf copy of this article

            In an important recent ruling the Connecticut Superior Court held that employers cannot terminate “at-will” employees simply because they are victims of domestic violence. Gillies v. Stonington Free Library.

Making Non-Competes and Other Restrictive Covenants Enforceable

pdf buttonClick here to download a pdf copy of this article

            Contrary to the popular belief of many, non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants are enforceable, when properly drafted. Non-compete agreements typically prevent an employee from competing with their employer during the term of employment and for some period following termination. The agreement must be narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests, for a reasonable duration, within a reasonable geographic scope. It must also not unfairly restrain an employee’s opportunity to work in his occupation. These factors will differ significantly based on the employer’s business and the employee’s duties. For instance, courts have found that a single hair salon may enforce a non-compete that prevents its stylists from providing similar services within a 10 mile radius for one year following termination.

Connecticut’s Employer Defamation Defense

pdf buttonClick here to download a pdf copy of this article

            The Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously held that an employer will be liable for defamatory intra-company communications made with either “actual malice” or “malice in fact.” Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., 291 Conn. 620 (2009). A statement made with “actual malice” is one made with actual knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth. A statement made with “malice in fact” is one made with bad faith or improper motive. Proving actual malice is more difficult.

Recording Conversations Without Adequate Consent Violates Law

pdf buttonClick here to download a pdf copy of this article

            Secretly recording a telephone conversation without the consent of all parties participating in the conversation, such as between an employee and supervisor, violates Connecticut civil law. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d makes it unlawful for anyone to record a phone conversation without the consent of all parties to the communication. Such consent must be obtained in advance, in writing, or verbally at the start of the recording, or through automatic tone warnings throughout the conversation.


Schaffer Law, LLC - 50 Bainton Road - West Hartford, CT.  06117 - Phone: (860) 216-1965 - Fax: (860) 606-9595 - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.