2. Legal Articles
  3. General Practice

REFINE BY AREAS

Search Legal Articles

Legal Articles, General Practice

Sufficient Consideration for At-Will Employees

Home Funding Group, LLC v. Kochmann, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41376

Court Finds 50-Mile Radius Prohibition Valid in a Connecticut Non-Compete Agreement

United Rentals, Inc. v. Frey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16375

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

What may or may not constitute sexual harassment in the workplace can be a tricky subject.  The Connecticut Superior Court ruled on a specific provision of Connecticut’s sexual harassment law, specifically, the provision defining sexual harassment as “any conduct of a sexual nature” when “submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment.”

I Was Injured at Work and Cannot Complete my Usual Job Requirements. Will I Need Legal Assistance in Connecticut?

I Was Injured at Work and Cannot Complete my Usual Job Requirements. Will I Need Legal Assistance in Connecticut?

Is it Illegal to Decline to Hire a Qualified Candidate Because of Age in Connecticut?

Is it Illegal to Decline to Hire a Qualified Candidate Because of Age in Connecticut?

Is it Illegal for an Employer to Bully an Employee in Connecticut?

Is it Illegal for an Employer to Bully an Employee in Connecticut?

Retaliation Claim Under Title VII Denied, Employer Had Legitimate Reasons for Pay Decrease

In a U.S. District Court case, a female employee’s claim of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was dismissed because the employer provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for its adverse employment action.[1] The female employee brought action against her employer, alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[2] and the equivalent state discrimination law[3]. Specifically, plaintiff alleges she suffered unlawful discrimination, based upon her sex, alleging she was subjected to a hostile work environment and suffered retaliation for complaining about the same.[4]

Use of Word “Bitch” Does Not Automatically Imply Gender-Based Hostility

A work environment is considered “hostile” if a reasonable person would have found it so and if the plaintiff subjectively so perceived it.  Outrageous conduct and egregious acts that are severe or pervasive automatically command an inference of gender-based hostility.  In the workplace of today, crude or degrading epithets, while hardly the rule, are certainly not the exception.  One such word—“bitch”—has seemingly found a place of its own in some people’s daily vocabulary.  The question arises as to whether constant use of that word in relation to a female employee is sex-based and reflects hostility toward women.  The short answer is it can, but doesn’t necessarily have to.

Constructive Discharge Does Not Invalidate Connecticut Non-Compete Agreements

Drummond American LLC v. Share Corporation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105965

Five Things that Make a Connecticut Non-Compete Enforceable

The Fairfield County employment lawyers here at Maya Murphy, P.C., have advised numerous residents of Greenwich, New Canaan, Stamford, Darien, and Westport about the enforceability of non-competition provisions contained in Employment Agreements or Separation Agreements.  While every case, and the wording of every agreement, is different, there are five “constants” that Connecticut courts look to in deciding whether or not to enforce a non-competition clause.  They are the starting point for any discussion or individual analysis of whether a particular non-compete may be enforceable as to you. Again, every case turns upon its own peculiar facts. The key concepts are:

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.