Posts tagged with "employment"

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.

When is A Non-Compete Geographical Limitation Unreasonable?

In Braman Chemical Enterprise, Inc. v. Barnes, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3753, Ms. Valerie Barnes worked as an exterminator for Braman Chemical Enterprises, Inc. from November 5, 1990, to April 26, 2006.  On October 24, 1990, in preparation for Ms. Barnes beginning to work, the parties executed a non-compete agreement titled “Restriction Against Other Employment After Termination of Work With Braman Chemical Enterprises, Inc.” where it stated that Ms. Barnes was prohibited from working at any branch of a pest control business within fifty miles of the Hartford City Hall for a period of six months.

Case Details

The company provided pest control services to commercial and residential customers in approximately ninety percent of Connecticut’s towns and cities.  Ms. Barnes worked the majority of her career with Braman servicing the area defined as east of New Haven, west of Guilford, south of Meriden, and north of the Long Island Sound.  She received training for her operator’s license while employed by Braman but obtained her supervisor’s license on her own time and at her own expense.

On April 26, 2006, Ms. Barnes voluntarily terminated her employment at Braman and formed a Connecticut limited liability company called “Bug One, LLC” based in Hamden that provided substantially identical services as her previous employer.  Braman sued Ms. Barnes in Connecticut state court to enforce the non-compete and enjoin her from further violations of the restrictive covenant’s provisions.  Ms. Barnes asserted that the geographical limitation in the agreement was unreasonable and provided an unnecessary amount of protection for Braman.

The Court’s Findings

The court found Ms. Barnes’ argument to be meritorious and denied Braman’s request to enforce the agreement.  A non-compete agreement is analyzed in its entirety but a single unreasonable provision can be sufficient to invalidate the entire agreement and prevent enforcement.  Connecticut courts have traditionally tended to apply greater scrutiny to a non-compete agreement that creates a general restriction on a geographical area than agreements that focus simply on doing business with the employer’s clients.

Employers are legally allowed to protect themselves in a “reasonably limited market area” but may not overreach to the degree that the restriction prevents the former employee from practicing his or her trade in order to make a living.  While Braman contended that the geographical limitation was reasonably tailored to meet its legitimate business needs, the court held that the provision went well beyond the “fair protection of plaintiff’s [Braman’s] interests”.

The geographical area of fifty miles from Hartford City Hall placed an unreasonable restraint on trade for Ms. Barnes.  The court notes that the prohibited area covered roughly two million potential customers and an area of 7,850 square miles, covering parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York.  To put this in perspective, the entire state of Connecticut is only 5,018 square miles.  This area as defined in the non-compete agreement was thus an unreasonable limitation and sufficient cause to invalidate the entire agreement.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Connecticut Federal Court Applies Louisiana Law to Enforce Non-Compete to Protect Confidential Information

In United Rentals, Inc. v. Myers, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25287, United Rental, Inc. was a Delaware corporation with principal business operations in Connecticut that employed Ms. Charlotte Myers in its Shreveport, Louisiana office from May 20, 2002, to March 7, 2003.  She signed an employment agreement with United Rentals on her first day of work that contained non-compete and confidentiality clauses that prohibited employment for a period of twelve months at any competing company located within one hundred miles of a United Rentals location where she worked.

The restrictive covenants further stated that the state and federal courts in Fairfield County, Connecticut would have jurisdiction in the event that legal proceedings ensued.  Upon her voluntary termination from United Rentals, Ms. Myers began to work at Head & Enquist Equipment, Inc., a competitor, at an office located approximately ten miles away from the United Rentals’ Shreveport office.  United Rentals contacted her to remind her of the restrictive covenants and her obligations under them but she continued her employment with Head & Enquist.

The Lawsuit

United Rentals sued Ms. Myers in Connecticut federal court for breach of the non-compete and confidentiality agreements and sought a court injunction to enforce their provisions.  The court found in favor of United Rentals and granted its request to enforce the non-compete agreement.

Ms. Myers presented various arguments to the court to persuade it to deny enforcement of the agreement, but the court ultimately found in favor of United Rentals.  She argued that Louisiana law should be controlling in the legal dispute, and further asserted that Louisiana law does not permit “choice of law” clauses in employment agreements.

The court investigated Ms. Myers’ contention and explained that the proper procedure to determine if a “choice of law” clause is permissible is to consult the law of the state being selected, in this case, that of Connecticut.  Connecticut law however cannot be the “choice of law” state when there is another state with a “materially greater interest…in the determination of the particular issue”.  The court held that Louisiana did in fact have a greater interest in the dispute and thus Louisiana law was applicable and controlling for the case.

The Court’s Decision

Although Louisiana law is less than favorable to United Rentals with regard to “choice of law” clauses, it still recognizes that parties are entitled to a remedy in connection with a violation of a confidentiality agreement “if the material sought to be protected is in fact confidential”.  Courts generally view the disclosure of confidential information as sufficient evidence for a company to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted.

During her employment with the company, Ms. Myers was exposed to and had access to United Rentals’ trade secrets, contract details, customer data, financial information, and marketing plans/strategies.  The court held that this was clearly sensitive and confidential information, the content of which entitled United Rentals to protection in the form of a court-ordered injunction.

The court held for United Rentals despite applying Louisiana law in response to Ms. Myers’ justified assertion that this specific “choice of law” provision was not valid.  Although Louisiana law shuns “choice of law” provisions in non-compete agreements, it does support injunctions when it is necessary and proper for a company to protect its confidential business information.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Connecticut Court Uses Oral Agreement to Substantiate Consideration for Non-Compete Agreement

In Command Systems, Inc. v. Wilson, 1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 406, Mr. Steven Wilson worked for Command Systems, Inc. where he received a promotion to the position of Vice President and Secretary of the company on June 26, 1990.  In September of that year, management informed Mr. Wilson that he would receive a bonus contingent on the company achieving certain sales goals.  The company did achieve the specified goals in December 1990 but the company informed Mr. Wilson that he needed to sign an agreement containing a contractual non-compete clause before he could receive the bonus.  The parties signed an agreement on December 21, 1990, that contained several restrictive covenants.

Mr. Wilson voluntarily terminated his employment with Command Systems a few years later and formed a new company, the Vertex Company.  The creation of the new company and Mr. Wilson’s actions are the basis of Command’s complaint regarding the breach of the December 1990 non-compete agreement.  Mr. Wilson requested summary judgment on the matter because the agreement lacked consideration and was therefore not legally binding on the parties.

The court had to answer the basic question of whether the 1990 agreement with the contractual restrictions was a valid and enforceable contract.  The court ultimately denied Mr. Wilson’s request for summary judgment and found that the agreement between the parties had adequate consideration and constituted an enforceable contract.  The agreement stated that the consideration for the agreement was “Wilson’s appointment as Secretary of Command”, but he had held this title for several months prior to the non-compete agreement.  The court recognized this but looked beyond this clause of the agreement to identify adequate consideration in relation to Mr. Wilson’s promotion.

The Court’s Decision

The court looked to affidavits provided by Mr. Caputo, Command’s president, to find adequate consideration for the agreement.  The court did not find any factual holes in Mr. Caputo’s statements and had no reason to believe that they contained any misrepresentations, omissions, or lies.  The affidavits repeatedly referenced several conversations between Mr. Caputo and Mr. Wilson, especially an oral agreement wherein Mr. Wilson agreed to sign a non-competition restriction in exchange for being promoted to Secretary of the company.  Mr. Caputo stated, “The decision to make Wilson Secretary of the plaintiff corporation was based on his agreement to sign the contract of employment” in December 1990 that contained the restrictive covenants.

Command provided Mr. Wilson with the non-compete contract when he received the paperwork that officially named him Secretary, although the parties did not sign the agreement until several months later in December.  The contract contained language and clauses that highlighted that Mr. Wilson was being made Secretary of the company in exchange for the execution of an employment agreement restricting future employment activities.

The court used the information from Mr. Caputo’s affidavits to hold that there was an understanding between the parties at the time of Mr. Wilson’s promotion that it was contingent upon the execution of a non-compete agreement.  The court interpreted the oral agreement and the contract presented at the time of promotion as contemporaneous evidence that the non-compete agreement was in fact supported by adequate consideration.  Mr. Wilson failed to meet the requisite burden of proof in demonstrating that the agreement lacked consideration and the court denied his request for summary judgment.

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

Court Awards Wife Lump Sum and Periodic Alimony

Alimony comes in many flavors. In Portas v. Lapresa, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. FSTFA094017271S (Jan. 28, 2011, Wenzel, J.), the parties were married for approximately twelve years.  Having married in Buenos Aires, Argentina, they moved to the United States in January of 2000 and purchased a condominium in Stamford, Connecticut soon after their arrival.

Trial Background

At the time of trial, the Husband was forty-one years old and in generally good health.  He was a certified public accountant in Argentina, and, therefore, qualified for certain accounting positions within the United States.  The Court found that during the marriage he held a number of different positions with various financial and international firms in the area of internal audits.  Although he was unemployed at the time of trial, the Court noted that he was actively seeking employment and looking at a broad range of jobs.

At the time of trial, the Wife was forty years old.  Due to her immigration status, she was unable to seek employment in the United States until 2009.  However, due to a very serious medical condition, from which she continued to suffer even at the time of trial, she was never able to work.  There were no children of the marriage, and the parties’ only significant asset was the marital residence.

The Wife alleged that the parties’ relationship began to change when the Husband had an affair with another woman.  However, the Court attributed the breakdown of the marriage to the fact that the Wife experienced significant and continuing health problems which, combined with the Husband’s inability to maintain steady employment, resulted in significant financial difficulties and prolonged periods of separation.

The Alimony Payments

After fashioning orders regarding the division of marital property, the Court ordered the Husband to pay the plaintiff lump sum alimony in the amount of $10,000, and periodic alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month for a period of five years. The Court further ordered that the periodic alimony would increase upon the defendant’s employment to the greater of $l,250 or thirty percent of the first $100,000 of his income; fifteen percent of all amounts in excess of $100,000 but less than $200,000; and ten percent of all amounts over $200,000.  The Court also specified that any alimony paid over the amount of $3,000 a month would be reduced at the rate of $.50 for each dollar of net income earned by the Husband.


If you have any questions relating to alimony or divorce proceedings, please feel free to contact Joseph Maya, Esq. by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at  JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Termination Does Not Invalidate a Non-Compete Agreement

Built In America, Inc. v. Morris, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2953

Mr. Michael Morris was the owner of Built In America, Inc. until he sold his entire stock in the company to Mr. Marc Costa in October 2000.  The parties executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement that legally transferred the stock and ownership of the company.  The transaction included an employment contract for an initial period of two years and a non-compete clause that became effective upon Mr. Morris’s termination from the company.

The company terminated Mr. Morris in April 2001 and he proceeded to work in direct competition with his former employer.  Mr. Costa and Built In America sued Mr. Morris for violation of the non-compete agreement and asked the court to enforce the agreement’s provisions.  Mr. Morris argued that the restrictive covenant was null and void because the company had breached the employment agreement when it unlawfully terminated his employment.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Built In America, ordered the enforcement of the covenant not to compete, and issued an injunction.  There was no dispute over the reasonableness of the covenant, only a dispute over whether it became void when the company allegedly improperly terminated Mr. Morris.  Built In America cited previous Connecticut cases, most notably Robert S. Weiss & Associates, Inc. v. Wiederlight (208 Conn. 525 (1988)), where the court held that termination did not invalidate a non-compete agreement.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the company was justified with respect to its decision to terminate Mr. Morris’s employment, stating that his “behavior was so outrageous that one is left to believe he was inviting his discharge”.  The court ultimately concluded that the covenant was legally binding and ordered its enforcement.


The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Non-Compete Invalidated Due to Unnecessary Restrictions on Future Employment

Connecticut Bathworks Corp. v. Palmer, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2193

Connecticut Bathworks Corporation was a company servicing New Haven, Fairfield, and Litchfield counties that remodeled bathrooms via the installation of prefabricated acrylic bathtub liners and wall systems.  The company employed Mr. Palmer from approximately the beginning of April 2001 to February 28, 2003 at which point Mr. Palmer voluntarily terminated his employment.  He began to work for Re-Bath of Connecticut, a company in direct competition with Bathworks, the next day.

The issue in this case is that Mr. Palmer signed a “Company Confidentiality Agreement” when he began to work for Bathworks that contained a covenant not to compete that prohibited him from “being employed by any business in competition with the plaintiff [Bathworks] within any county in which the plaintiff is doing business for a period of three years from the termination of his employment with the plaintiff”.  This created a three-year prohibition on working for a competitor with the tri-county area of New Haven, Fairfield, and Litchfield.

Bathworks sued Mr. Palmer in Connecticut state court and requested an injunction to enjoin him from further violations of the non-compete agreement.  The court analyzed the facts of the case, held in favor of Mr. Palmer, and denied Bathworks’s request for injunctive relief.  The court’s decision ultimately came down to the issue of whether Mr. Palmer’s employment with Re-Bath would negatively affect Bathworks’s interests and business operations.  Bathworks carried the burden of establishing the probability of success on the merits of the case and the court held that it failed to present sufficient evidence to indicate it would be directly and immediately harmed due to breach of the restrictive covenant.

The Court’s Decision

Bathworks argued that Mr. Palmer acquired valuable trade secrets and information during his employment with the company and that his continued employment with Re-Bath would harm its operations.  The court however found that Mr. Palmer, as an installer, did not have access to Bathworks’s confidential information or any trade secrets that would put the company at a competitive disadvantage.  The court further noted that while Mr. Palmer was a skilled laborer, he was not a high-level executive, nor did he provide “special, extraordinary, or unique” services.  Bathworks also failed to present any evidence to show that Mr. Palmer knew of or took part in the company’s sales/marketing activities or the development of a business strategy.

The court stated that its role in deciding the case was to balance the parties’ interest to fairly protect Bathworks’s business while not unreasonably restricting Mr. Palmer’s right to seek employment elsewhere.  This agreement however, according to court, unnecessarily restricted Mr. Palmer’s right to work at another company because there was nothing about that employment which would disadvantage Bathworks in the industry.  The non-compete agreement went beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect the company’s interests and as such, the court denied Bathworks’s request for an injunction.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Non-Compete Enforceability: Must Protect Legitimate Interest & Not Be Punitive

Ranciato v. Nolan, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 489

Historic Restoration and Appraisal, LLC (HRA) was engaged in the business of restoring primarily detached single-family homes that had suffered casualty damage from fire and/or water.  The company employed Mr. Timothy Nolan to work as a project manager for jobs located throughout the state of Connecticut.  Mr. Nolan’s employment began on November 18, 1996 and the company informed him shortly thereafter that his employment was contingent on the execution of a non-compete agreement.

The parties signed the restrictive covenant on November 21, 1996 and it prohibited Mr. Nolan from performing the same services offered by HRA in the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for a period of three years.  The agreement did not affect Mr. Nolan’s ability to offer painting or home improvement services that were not in connection to fire and/or water damage.  In exchange for this employment restriction, the agreement stipulated that Mr. Nolan’s annual salary would be $48,500.  He felt that he would be fired if he failed to sign the agreement and signed it without consulting a legal professional.

HRA fired Mr. Nolan on January 24, 1997 after repeated incidents of discovering that he was receiving lewd and inappropriate materials via the company’s fax machine.  He began to work for McGuire Associates shortly after HRA discharged him and performed marketing and business development services in the capacity of his new position.  Unlike HRA, McGuire is a preferred builder and the court held that it did not compete with HRA.  The company sued Mr. Nolan in Connecticut state court and asked the court to enforce the non-compete agreement that the parties had executed.  The Superior Court of Connecticut in New Haven rejected HRA’s request and held that the company “suffered no financial loss as a result of the defendant’s employment by McGuire”.

The Non-Compete Agreement

According to the non-compete agreement, Mr. Nolan can be in breach only if he works at a company that is “in competition with” HRA.  While the court acquiesced that HRA and McGuire were both in the construction industry, it held that they performed significantly different services and were not in competition with each other for clients or projects.  The industry classified HRA as a “fire chaser” because it received most of its jobs by monitoring police reports and fire scanners to alert them of individuals that needed repairs for fire and/or water damage.

McGuire however was a preferred builder and provided services for not only single-family homes, but also commercial and municipal buildings.  The courts interpreted the significant differences between the two companies as adequate evidence that Mr. Nolan was not “in competition with” HRA because of his new employment with McGuire.

The Court’s Decision 

Furthermore, the court discussed the reasons why a court would enforce a non-compete covenant, specifically referencing the legal system’s desire to balance and protect the parties’ interests.  Courts generally grant injunctions to enforce a non-compete agreement when the plaintiff employer can provide adequate evidence that the former employee’s breach will result in adverse financial consequences.  The court noted that this policy did not apply to the case since HRA had not suffered any financial loss or hardship and Mr. Nolan did not have any access to confidential information that would be harmful to the company should it be disclosed.

Additionally, the court concluded that the time and geographical restrictions in the agreement were unreasonable given the facts of the case.  HRA did not have anything to lose because of McGuire employing Mr. Nolan because of the differences in their business operations and the court held that the restrictions, if enforced, would only serve to prevent Mr. Nolan from employment at another company.

The policy to enforce non-compete agreements focuses on protecting the interests of the employer and not to punish the employee and excessively restrict future employment opportunities.  Specifically, the court cited that HRA could only “benefit from protection in the New Haven area” and that the “tri-state restriction imposed on the defendant was not necessary to protect any legitimate interests of the plaintiff and, therefore, [the agreement] was not ‘reasonably limited’”.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Will my Fiancé’s Record Make it More Difficult for me to Find a Job Once we Are Married?

Despite any efforts to keep your fiancé’s incarceration record a secret, it is still possible for a potential employer to discover this information given the wide scope of information available to anyone on the internet.  Regardless, it is unknown whether or not this information will affect their decision-making process regarding your employment.  It may be wise to retain your maiden name, especially when applying for jobs, in order to avoid the issue entirely.


If you have any 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.

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