Matthew K. Curtin

Subscribe to Matthew K. Curtin's Posts

The Department of Labor announced its return from winter vacation this week by issuing three new opinion letters.  Two of the letters address Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) payment calculation issues; the other deals with the applicability of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to a special health district.
…
Continue Reading Department of Labor Releases First Three Opinion Letters of 2020

The holidays arrived early last week for employers and management-side labor attorneys, as the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision approving employer policies that prohibit the discussion of pending workplace investigations. In Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store and Kathy Johnson, Cases 27-CA-191574 and 27-CA-198058, the Board considered two workplace rules: “one requiring employees to ‘maintain confidentiality’ regarding workplace investigations into ‘illegal or unethical behavior’ and the other prohibiting ‘unauthorized discussion’ of investigations or interviews ‘with other team members.’”
…
Continue Reading NLRB Approves of Employer Policies Requiring Confidential Workplace Investigations

Effective October 1, 2019, Connecticut increased the minimum wage and implemented extensive revisions to existing sexual harassment laws. Below is a brief summary of the changes. As always, Murtha employment lawyers are available to discuss these new laws and how they may affect your organization.

Changes to Connecticut Sexual Harassment Laws…

Continue Reading Revised Sexual Harassment Law and Minimum Wage Increase Take Effect October 1, 2019

In an effort to resolve a hotly debated legal issue spanning decades for private college and university employers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently released a proposed rule that would effectively block college students from unionizing.
Continue Reading Calling All Campuses: NLRB Proposes New Rule to Block College Student Labor Unions

Notice to employees due September 30, and required contribution withholding begins October 1.

Massachusetts’ Paid Family and Medical Leave program was signed into law in June 2018, and cannot be utilized by employees until January 2021. But by September 30, 2019, employers must notify all covered individuals of the Paid Family and Medical Leave program, and on October 1, 2019, employers must begin payroll deductions for Q2 2019 unless an exemption has been approved.
Continue Reading UPDATE: Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Employer Deadlines

In a case of first impression, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has found that, under Massachusetts law, retail and inside sales employees, paid entirely on a commission or draw basis, are entitled to separate and additional pay for overtime hours worked and premium pay for work on Sundays. See Sullivan v. Sleepy’s LLC, No. SJC-12542 (Mass. May 8, 2019).
Continue Reading Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules Commission-Only Retail and Inside Salespeople are Entitled to Separate Overtime and Sunday Premium Pay

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released data detailing breakdowns for the charges of workplace discrimination it received in 2018. Sexual harassment charges increased 13.6% from 2017 – making sexual harassment the second most frequent charge filed with the EEOC.  Overall, the agency received 7,609 sexual harassment charges and obtained $56.6 million in monetary benefits for victims of sexual harassment.
Continue Reading #MeToo Continues National and Local Impact: EEOC Identifies Increase in Sexual Harassment Charges, CGA Considers Change to Sexual Harassment Law

A reminder to Connecticut employers: generally speaking, questions about an applicant’s salary history are prohibited as of January 1, 2019. As I detailed in an earlier post, Connecticut has joined the growing number of states restricting what employers may ask applicants about salary history. While salary history inquiries are now generally prohibited, there are…

The end of the recent U.S. Supreme Court term brought with it the most consequential labor law ruling in recent memory. On Wednesday, June 27, 2018, the Court held that public sector employees who are represented by a union, but are non-members of the union, cannot be compelled to pay money to cover the union’s cost of representing the non-member. In a major victory for opponents of organized labor, the Court overruled long-standing precedent allowing public sector unions to compel so-called “agency” or “fair share” fees from non-consenting members.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Deals Blow to Public Sector Unions by Barring Compelled Union Agency Fees