Posts tagged with "Connecticut law"

Secretary Sues Board of Ed for Racial Discrimination

A Bronx school employee is suing the Board of Education for $100 million for employment discrimination – saying she was denied a transfer, even though officials knew she was being harassed by her boss. Maureen Grogan, 54, a secretary at Community School Board District 8 since 1977, said Dennis Coleman – president of the School Boards Association and a Board 8 member – began harassing her five years ago.

In July, the board agreed she had been the victim of racial discrimination and harassment by Coleman – but refused to further suspend him, or offer her a position in a different office. The Board of Education did not provide a comment.

New York Post
By LINDA MASSARELLA


If you have questions regarding employment discrimination or any employment matter, contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

Dennis Coleman’s Bad Behavior Costs Board of ED $100G

The city’s Board of Education settled a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a former Bronx School Board employee for $100,000.

The Lawsuit

The suit, filed against the Board of Ed and others by Maureen Grogan, a long-time secretary at Community School Board 8, alleged sexual and racial harassment and assault by Dennis Coleman, a member and former president of that board.  A counterclaim made by Coleman, alleging that Grogan’s accusations were false and defamatory, was dismissed by the court also last week.

Coleman, at one time a State Senator for a short period in the mid-1960s, was suspended by then School Chancellor Rudy Crew several years ago in connection with his behavior over an incident during a school board meeting. A tape of the meeting revealed that he had yelled at a parent in attendance, and shoved Grogan, re-injuring an old neck problem she suffered from.

Coleman is still a member of the Board. The suit, which alleged a pattern of discrimination that stretched through years, added fuel to the fire of that board’s already hot flames of racial division. Grogan’s suit claimed that Coleman would regularly treat her in an abusive fashion, making her feel “insulted and humiliated.”

An investigation by the Office of Equal Opportunity Employment into the allegations found grounds substantiating at least some of Grogan’s claims. Despite the findings, however, Board of Education officials did not reprimand Coleman, sparking the suit filed by Grogan’s lawyer, Joseph Maya, in federal court for the Southern District of New York.

The Settlement

Coleman was later suspended in connection with the incident at the school board meeting. In Crew’s harsh suspension letter to Coleman at that time, the school’s chancellor had said that Coleman’s actions, “went beyond that of antagonism and rudeness and crossed the line beyond which elected school board members can go… your vilification of parents, as well as your shouting at colleagues and staff … are indefensible.”

Coleman could not be reached for comment as of press time. Board of Education officials were also unavailable for comment as of press time. Maya, reached by phone, called the settlement a “tremendous victory” for his client.

“It really is a victory for her to be vindicated,” Maya said. “And to have Dennis Coleman’s counterclaims dismissed.”

Maya called the entire incident a shame, saying that “The children of New York City should not be burdened with losing $100,000 for this sort of thing.”

According to Maya, last week’s settlement came after long negotiations between both parties. He called the discrimination suffered by his client “egregious and systemic.”

By DAVID CRITCHELL

Is a Bonus a ‘Wage’?: Not According to this Connecticut Supreme Court Decision

Are you currently employed in Connecticut and have been promised a year-end bonus or had been promised a year-end bonus and never received it?   A Connecticut Supreme Court decision may affect the amount of protection you are afforded under Connecticut law if your employer defaults or has defaulted on that promise.

This case addressed the question of whether a year-end bonus promised by an employer is considered a ‘wage’ for the purposes of the Connecticut Wage Act.  Answering that question in the negative, the Supreme Court denied a Connecticut employee the ability to proceed with a wrongful withholding of wages claim that he had initially pursued after his employer failed to pay out what the employee had thought to be a promised year-end bonus.

The Conditions of a Bonus Payment

Under this decided Supreme Court case, the amount of liability your employer will face for failing to pay out a promised year-end bonus will hinge upon how your employer defined the conditions under which a bonus would be paid.  If the conditions are specific goals set for you as an individual employee (e.g. a certain number of billable hours need to be reached), then under the Connecticut Wage Act your employer will be required to pay out that bonus as wages in accordance with their promise.

If they do not, you are afforded the protections of the Wage Act and can bring an action against your employer for wrongfully withholding wages.  In the case that this action is successful, it is possible that you could receive, by way of damages, twice the full amount of your bonus and any attorney fees incurred in pursuing the action.  In addition, due to the serious nature of such an offense, your employer could potentially be fined and/or imprisoned for their actions.

Unfortunately, however, if your employer was more ambiguous about the requisite conditions for a bonus, under this new case law, it is likely that they will be able to avoid liability for wrongfully withholding your wages.  If that is the case, while you can still pursue other causes of action against your employer, you will not be able to receive twice the full amount of your bonus or attorney fees.

Case Details

The events of this case unfolded as follows:   At the beginning of the employment relationship between an employee and a Connecticut law firm, the parties agreed that the employee’s annual compensation would consist of a base salary and a year-end bonus.  The employment contract called for this year-end bonus to be based on factors such as seniority, business generation, productivity, professional ability, pro bono work, and loyalty to the firm.

The employee remained at the firm for several years and each year he received his salary and the promised year-end bonus.  When the employee left the firm he discovered that he was not going to receive the year-end bonus for that last year of his employment.  To try and recover what he had thought was a promised bonus; the employee commenced an action against his employer alleging breach of contract and wrongful withholding of wages.

The Court’s Decision

The trial court dismissed the wrongful withholding of wages claim, determining that the year-end bonus was not ‘wages’ as defined by the Connecticut Wage Act.  The breach of contract claim, however, went to trial.  The Trial Court found in favor of the employee and awarded him damages in the amount of his year-end bonus plus interest.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding as to the breach of contract claim but reversed the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the wrongful withholdings of wages claim.  The Appellate Court determined that the structure of the agreement as to the year-end bonus meant that the bonus could have been classified as ‘wages’ under the Connecticut Wage Act and therefore held that the employee could proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages claim.

The issue of the wrongful withholdings of wages claim was appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court where the Court decided that because the employee’s bonus was discretionary, (not ascertainable by applying a formula) it did not constitute ‘wages’ under the Connecticut Wage Act.  The employee, therefore, was not able to proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages claim.

Although the employee did recover some monetary damages through his breach of contract claim, it was not anywhere near as much as he would have received if he had been able to proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages action.

Importance of Knowing the Terms of Your Bonus

It is quite possible that after the release of this opinion many employers will revisit their bonus policies to make the language a little less precise or announce that their bonuses are discretionary in order to take advantage of the protections afforded under this case.  It is important, therefore, that as an employee you are aware of what kind of bonus you have been promised so that you know how strongly to rely on that promised bonus and what options are available to you if the employer refuses to pay.

If you have already been denied your year-end bonus and believe that it was a discretionary bonus, there are still ways in which you can potentially recover that lost income, such as the breach of contract claim pursued by the employee in this case.  If you have been denied a year-end bonus that was not discretionary and you had met the required conditions for receiving that bonus, you are still protected under the Connecticut Wage Act and can bring a wrongful withholding of wages action against your employer.  This action may allow you to receive damages in the amount double your bonus and possibly receive any incurred attorney fees.

If you have any questions regarding employment and labor law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He can be reached at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com. Mr. Maya handles cases involving employment contracts, separation agreements, non-competition agreements, restrictive covenants, union arbitrations, and employment discrimination cases in New York and Connecticut.

Pretrial Diversionary Programs in Connecticut

If you are a first-time offender in Connecticut, you may be eligible for pretrial diversionary programs, which consists of several programs designed to rehabilitate the offender, rather than punish them.  The objective, of course, is also to reduce recidivism and, effectively, state costs.  The public interest in minimizing repeat offenders is significant, which is why Connecticut continues to offer many offenders the benefit of these programs.    

Each diversionary program, while serving similar objectives, has different eligibility criteria, program objectives, time limitations, and requirements for successful completion.  Here is what you need to know about Connecticut’s most common diversionary programs:  

Accelerated Rehabilitation

To be eligible for Accelerated Rehabilitation (“AR”) in Connecticut, the defendant must be charged with a crime or, in some instances, a motor vehicle violation, not of serious nature.  The law expressly prohibits the use of AR for certain crimes including any class A or class B felony, operating under the influence, 2nd degree manslaughter, 2nd degree assault with a motor vehicle, 2nd degree sexual assault, 3rd degree sexual assault, 3rd degree sexual assault with a firearm, enticing a minor, 2nd or 3rd degree possession of child pornography, a crime or motor vehicle violation resulting in the death of another, family violence crimes, and others.  Prior convictions may also result in ineligibility for this program.  

If you are deemed eligible for this program, you will be supervised by the Court Support Services Division (“CSSD”).  While under CSSD supervision, the prosecution may be stayed for up to two (2) years enabling you time to successfully complete the program.    

Pretrial Alcohol Education Program

To be eligible for the Alcohol Education Program (“AEP”) in Connecticut, the defendant must be charged with operating under the influence, violating safe boating rules, or 2nd degree reckless vessel operation while under the influence, with some exceptions.  Like AR, prior convictions may also result in ineligibility for this program.  

If you are deemed eligible, you will be allocated one (1) year to complete this program consisting of between ten (10) to fifteen (15) sessions of an alcohol intervention or substance abuse program.  

Pretrial Drug Education and Community Service

To be eligible for the Drug Education and Community Service program, the defendant must be charged with a drug paraphernalia or possession crime or possession of less than .5 ounce of marijuana punishable by fine.  

Under this program, the defendant must submit to a Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (“DMHAS”) for evaluation.  The defendant is allocated one (1) year to complete this program consisting of a fifteen (15) session drug education or substance abuse treatment program.  

Pretrial Family Violence Education Program

To be eligible for the Family Violence Education Program (“FVEP”) in Connecticut, the defendant must be charged with a family violence crime, with some exceptions.  A family violence crime, in Connecticut, is defined as a crime that includes an element of family violence to a family or household member. 

The law expressly prohibits the use of FVEP for class A, B, C, or unclassified felonies with possible prison sentences greater than ten (10) years, and class D or unclassified felonies with possible prison sentences greater than five (5) years.  Any offenders that were involved in a family violence crime that involved inflicting serious physical injury are also ineligible without good cause.  Prior family violence convictions may also result in ineligibility for this program. 

If you are deemed eligible for this program, the Court Support Services Division (“CSSD”) will supervise you to ensure successful completion.  While under CSSD supervision, the prosecution may be stayed for up to two (2) years.

Pretrial Supervised Diversionary Program

To be eligible for the Pretrial Supervised Diversionary Program in Connecticut, the defendant must be charged with a crime or motor vehicle violation that is not of serious nature and must have a mental or emotional condition that has substantial adverse effects on the defendant’s ability to function.  This condition must require care and treatment.  Alternatively, the defendant may be eligible if they are a veteran with a mental health condition that is amenable to treatment if not dishonorably discharged from the military.  

If deemed eligible for this program, CSSD will develop a tailored treatment plan, even collaborating with state and federal agencies including DMHAS and the state and federal veteran’s departments.  Unlike the other diversionary programs, specially trained probation officers will supervise the defendant ensuring successful completion.  

With all of these programs, eligibility and admission into the program will not always result in your charges being dismissed.  It is imperative that you are wholly compliant with the court’s directives to ensure successful completion.  

If you have any further questions about criminal diversionary programs in Connecticut or would like the representation of an experienced attorney to assist you, contact our Managing Partner Joseph Maya directly via email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by telephone at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation.

Operating Under the Influence in Connecticut

If you are facing allegations of Operating Under the Influence (“OUI”) under Connecticut Law, you must understand the charges you are facing.  These offenses are taken seriously and can result in significant penalties including community service, probation, fines, license restrictions, and even jail time – depending on the facts and circumstances of your case.  The actions you take, or fail to take, before, during, and after you are charged can alter the outcome of the case significantly.

In the event that this is not your first-time facing allegations of Operating Under the Influence in Connecticut, the consequences become significantly more serious.  Here is what you need to know about OUI penalties in Connecticut:

1st Offense

Under Connecticut law, any person who violates the operating under the influence statute for the first time will be charged with a class B misdemeanor.  While this may sound relatively insignificant to you, the statute imposes additional penalties including a mandatory minimum of forty-eight (48) hours in jail and a fine of between five hundred and one thousand ($500-$1000) dollars.  If you are facing charges in addition to the OUI charge, expect even more consequences.  

2nd Offense

Any person who violates the operating under the influence statute for the second time in Connecticut will face even more serious consequences.  Under the statute, an OUI conviction as a second offender will result in a felony, rather than the misdemeanor charge given to first-time offenders.  The statute additionally imposes a much more severe mandatory minimum of one hundred twenty (120) days in jail and a fine somewhere between one and four ($1,000-$4,000) dollars.  Again, additional charges may result in even more penalties.

3rd Offense 

By the time you are charged with your third OUI in Connecticut, the law is not on your side and you can expect serious consequences.  If your choices have led to yet another OUI arrest, under Connecticut law you will be charged with an even more serious class E felony.  A conviction of a Class E felonies can mean up to three (3) years in prison.  The statute additionally requires a mandatory minimum of one (1) year in jail and a fine somewhere between two and five thousand ($2,000-$5,000) dollars.

Additional Consequences

On top of the already serious consequences, additional penalties may include community service, the requirement to complete a criminal diversionary program including the Alcohol Education Program, probation, conditional discharge outlining the terms of your release from custody, points on your license, the installation of an ignition interlock device on your vehicle requiring you to submit to a breath test every time you operate your vehicle, other license restrictions, and license suspension.   With so much at stake, it is imperative that you seek the assistance of competent counsel. An experienced OUI attorney can assist you in negotiating the best possible outcome for your case.


If you have any further questions about Operating Under the Influence in Connecticut or would like the representation of an experienced attorney to assist you, contact our Managing Partner Joseph Maya directly via email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by telephone at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation.

What You Need to Know About Expungement in Connecticut

Is Your Criminal Record Haunting You Years Later?  What You Need to Know About Expungement in Connecticut…

If you live in Connecticut, the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles (“BOPP”) Pardon Division has the power to grant a criminal expungement, also known as an Absolute Pardon.  Alternatively, for those not yet eligible for an absolute pardon, the BOPP has the power to issue a Certificate of Employability (“COE”) which can help you to secure employment while you get back on your feet.  

Absolute Pardon

An Absolute Pardon is an absolute erasure of your Connecticut criminal record.  To be eligible, certain requirements must be met:

  1. You must be a resident of the state of Connecticut.
  2. You must have one (1) or more criminal conviction(s) in any state of jurisdiction.
  3. Three (3) years must have passed since your most recent misdemeanor conviction.
  4. Five (5) years must have passed since your most recent felony conviction.
  5. Thirteen (13) months must have passed since the court nolled any charges against you.  
  6. You must have no pending charges, open cases, or be on any form of supervision in any jurisdiction, state of federal.

Assuming you have met all of these eligibility requirements, you may apply for an absolute pardon.  Once the application is started, you or your attorney will have six (6) months to complete the process, and it can be quite involved.  An Absolute Pardon in Connecticut requires a comprehensive background check that includes gathering imperative documents including your driver’s license, a criminal history report; fingerprints; incident reports; and court, probation, and police records. 

In addition to these documents, you are required to submit at least three (3) character reference questionnaires.   Once your file has been complete, a pre-screen telephone interview will be scheduled and finally, you will be required to attend a hearing on the issue.

Non-Violent Offenders

We get it – it sounds involved.  There is good news if your offenses are considered “non-violent” and do not involved a listed victim.  Non-violent offenders may be considered for expedited review, and it is possible for your expungement to be processed without the need for a pre-screen telephone interview or hearing.  However, this process is discretionary with the Pardons Board so do not hang your hat on it.

Will you succeed in the pardon process?

Like just about every other area of law, every case is different.  It is impossible to determine whether or not you will or will not succeed in the process, though some factors may help (or hurt) you.  The BOPP will look at a variety of factors, including but not limited to, the severity of the offense, the extent of your criminal record, how long it has been since your last conviction, whether the crime had any impact on the community, whether there were any listed victims and what input they might have had, and what you have been doing since the conviction are just some considerations that will go into assessing the application. 

Have you been very active in your community?  Have you completely turned your life around?  Have you been able to hold steady employment?  The list can go on.

Certificate of Employability

Even if you are not eligible for an Absolute Pardon at this time, the BOPP offers an alternative; a Certificate of Employability.  A COE is also known as a Provisional Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation.  Unlike an Absolute Parson, the process of obtaining this certificate does not erase your criminal record.  A COE is intended for employment and licensure purposes only.  

To be eligible for a COE, certain requirements must be met:

  1. You must be a resident of the state of Connecticut.
  2. You must have one (1) or more criminal conviction(s) in any state of jurisdiction.
  3. If you have recently completed a sentence or are on parole or special parole:
    1. You must have been in the community for ninety (90) days and have no new arrest(s) if you have recently completed your sentence and are not currently under supervision.
    2. You must have completed ninety (90) days of supervision if you are under the supervision of the Department of Corrections Parole and Community Services Division.
  4. Thirteen (13) months must have passed since the court nolled any charges against you.  

If you are currently on probation and have more than ninety (90) days of supervision left, you must apply through the Court Support Services Division (“CSSD”).  Contact your probation officer for further information.

Applying for a COE

Assuming you have met all of these eligibility requirements, you may apply for a COE.  The BOPP requires you to submit a Background Investigation Authorization Form, a copy of your valid Driver’s License or State ID, and a Supervising Officer Questionnaire for those currently under any form of supervision.  

Like Absolute Pardon applications, once submitted, your application for a COE will be reviewed and investigated.  Once the investigation and administrative review are complete, the Board will either deny or grant the issuance of the Certificate.  Unlike an Absolute Pardon, a hearing is not necessary for your application for a COE.    


If you have any further questions about expungement in Connecticut, contact our Managing Partner Joseph Maya directly via email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by telephone at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation.

Am I Entitled to Payment For Overtime Work, If I Have Not Been Paid for the Past 10 Years, in Connecticut?

If you have worked overtime but have not been appropriately compensated for your work, you may be entitled to payment.  Determining what money you may be entitled to depends on a number of different factors.  The first factor is the statute of limitations in your state.  Depending on this statute, you will only be entitled to collect overtime wages from a certain date.  Another important factor to consider is your employment contract.  It would be best to consult an experienced employment law attorney who can consider each important fact of your case to educate you on your best course of action.


If you have any further questions regarding employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

How Do I Write a Writ of Discovery or Suppression in Connecticut?

If you are going through a criminal case in Connecticut unrepresented, you may consider checking the judicial website or the Connecticut Practice Book for information on court procedure.  However, in many criminal cases, as the stakes are often high, an inexperienced defendant should consult experienced counsel.  Counsel can easily file any discovery motions or motion to suppress, in a timely and competent manner.  Without representation it is likely that a defendant will become overwhelmed by complex court procedures and will fail to handle the matter as effectively as possible.


If you have any further questions regarding criminal law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Medical Marijuana Use in the Connecticut Workplace

The news that Connecticut has given its approval to four medical marijuana growers in Simsbury, West Haven, Portland, and Watertown, inches the state that much closer to full implementation of the medical marijuana law that was passed in 2012.

The state also reported that over 1600 individuals in Connecticut have been certified by the state to receive medical marijuana. That number is expected to grow once production begins in earnest.

Add to that news, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington and employers now have a whole new area of law to familiarize themselves with.

It would be easy to just write some puns on the matter (and who can resist it in the headline) but it’s not such a laughing matter to employers struggling to figure out what the rules of the road are.

Summary of CT Medical Marijuana Laws

There are 5 important takeaways from CT’s medical marijuana laws:

  • Employers may not refuse to hire a person or discharge, penalize or threaten an employee based solely on such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver.
  • Employers may discriminate if required by federal funding or contracting provisions.
  • Employers MAY continue to prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including marijuana, at work.
  • Employers MAY continue to discipline employees for being under the influence of intoxicating substances at work.
  • But employers MAY NOT presume that a drug test result that is positive for marijuana means that the employee used at work or was under the influence at work.

While it is clear under [state law] that an employer may terminate or discipline an employee who reports to work impaired on account of his/her medical marijuana use, the law does not address how employers are to treat employees … who use marijuana during non-work hours, but will inevitably fail routine drug tests administered pursuant to a drug-free workplace policy.

Considering Employer Liability

If the employer terminates [the employee] for violating its policy, it risks liability if she proves she was not under the influence at work. On the other hand, if it does not terminate …, the employer risks liability should [the employee] report to work under the influence and injure herself or others.

Another novel issue that is arising? Suppose your employee is on a business trip in Colorado. After a sales meeting, on the way back to his hotel, the employee legally purchases and then consumes some Rocky Mountain marijuana. Can you discipline the employee for engaging in a legal activity while on “company business”?

As long as we have disparate state laws on the subject, we’re not going to get clear cut answers. For employers, be sure to stay up to date on the developments and talk with your legal counsel about the implications for your business now that we are on the outskirts of implementation.

Credit to Daniel Schwartz of Shipman and Goodwin LLP.

If you are the victim of workplace harassment, wrongful termination, or any other labor law crime, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner. The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at jmaya@mayalaw.com

Faragher/Ellerth Defense Applied to Protect Employer from Liability for Sexual Harassment

In a recent 11th Circuit Court case decided this year, the Court applied the Faragher/Ellerth defense to bar an employee’s sexual harassment suit under Title VII and state law.[1]

Case Details

There, a male hairdresser filed suit against his employer alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and Florida’s Civil Rights Act.  The employee alleged that his employer Creative Hairdressers was liable for allowing his former manager at a Hair Cuttery salon to sexually harass him. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that Hair Cuttery exercised reasonable care to prevent and correctly promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and that White unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities or to avoid harm.

Avoiding Liability Under the Faragher/Ellerth Defense

The Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton[2] and its companion case Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth[3] recognized certain affirmative defenses an employer can assert to preclude liability when an employee alleges sexual harassment by a supervisor.

Even if an employee establishes a prima facie case of sexual harassment, an employer can avoid liability under the Faragher/Ellerth defense if the employer shows (1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior, and (2) that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer, or to otherwise avoid harm. Both elements must be satisfied for the employer to avoid liability, and the employer bears the burden of proof on both elements.

In affirming District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, the 11th Circuit held that the Faragher/Ellerth defense applied to bar the employee’s claims under Title VII and the FCRA.  The Court recognized that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Hair Cuttery had promulgated and adequately disseminated sexual harassment policies and complaint procedures to its employees.

Further, the court held that the employee failed to promptly take advantage of Hair Cuttery’s sexual harassment policies and complaint procedures by not promptly notifying the company of his harassment.[4]

Failure to follow employer harassment policies can prevent a valid harassment claim.  If you are the victim of sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in New York City, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.

Should you have any questions workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.


[1] White v. Creative Hairdressers Inc., 11-16121, 2013 WL 203312 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013)