Photo of Matthew K. Curtin

Matthew Curtin is a Partner in the Litigation Department, the Chair of the Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group and a member of the Labor and Employment Practice Group.

In Matthew’s cybersecurity practice, he advises clients on compliance with state, federal and international privacy laws including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Matthew is particularly interested in advising his clients concerning employment privacy matters. Matthew is a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

In Matthew’s labor and employment practice, he has successfully represented employers of all sizes concerning a wide variety of claims before state and federal courts, the National Labor Relations Board, the Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, and other various administrative agencies.

Matthew has substantial experience with collective bargaining negotiations, labor arbitrations, and labor relations. He regularly counsels senior management and human resources professionals concerning employment contracts, employment policies, hiring and termination procedures, workplace investigations, and harassment and discrimination avoidance.

Matthew has significant experience representing businesses in litigation concerning trade secret theft, unfair competition, and breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

 

 

Starting tomorrow, October 1, 2019, Connecticut will increase the minimum wage and implement 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

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

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

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

At long last, the federal Department of Labor has issued its widely anticipated second proposal to raise the minimum salary threshold for employees to qualify for various white collar exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Following a failed attempt by the Obama-era DOL to set a salary threshold of $47,476, the DOL is setting its sights lower this time around with a proposed $35,308 salary threshold.
Continue Reading

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

Last August, we blogged about a case of first impression in Connecticut where a federal court judge found that Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (“PUMA”) creates a private cause of action for employment discrimination and that PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision is not preempted by federal law.  See Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co. LLC, 273 F. Supp. 3d 326, 340 (D. Conn. 2017).  On September 5, the court issued another decision in this case, offering further insight into this evolving area of employment litigation.
Continue Reading

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