Posts tagged with "find an attorney"

Proxy/Alter Ego Liability for Sexual Harassment

Leave a reply
Liability in Workplace Sexual Harassment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (that includes Connecticut and New York) addressed for the first time whether the so-called Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense is available when an alleged sexual harassment attacker holds a sufficiently high position within an organization so as to be considered the organization’s proxy or alter ego.  The Second Circuit joined the other Circuits that have considered the issue in concluding that under those circumstances, the affirmative defense was unavailable to the employer.

By way of background, Faragher/Ellerth held that a company could escape vicarious liability for sexual harassment by taking certain steps directed toward reporting and eradicating sexual harassment in the workplace.  Left open was the issue of the employer’s direct liability where the actor was deemed to be the proxy/alter ego of the company.  Under that doctrine, an employer is liable in its own right for wrongful harassing conduct, as opposed to being vicariously liable for the actions of company agents.

A Company’s Proxy or Alter Ego

But who is the company’s proxy or alter ego?  Prior cases clearly place the company president and other sufficiently senior corporate officers within that category, and refer to “that class of an organization’s officials who may be treated as the organization’s proxy.”  Understandably, the courts do not want to draw a bright line around who may be considered an employer proxy, so that unusual cases can be determined on their peculiar facts without being constrained by particular titles.

All that is required is for the supervisor to occupy a sufficiently high position in the management hierarchy of the company for his actions to be imputed to the company.  When the official’s unlawful harassment is thus automatically charged to the employer, it cannot raise the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense, even if the harassment did not result in an adverse employment action.

The result is a settling of the law in the Connecticut federal court; the Faragher/Ellerth defense is unavailable when the alleged harasser is the employer’s proxy or alter ego.  Both employers and employees now know better where they stand.

–

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about Title VII and 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.

Failure to Warn Case Against Generic Ibuprofen

Leave a reply

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against the maker of a generic brand of ibuprofen. The lawsuit is on behalf of a child who suffered liver damage after taking the drug as prescribed after surgery. The case holds generic drug makers to the same labeling standard as makers of patented drugs. The case alleges failure to warn of ibuprofen risks by the drug maker. The court says the duty to warn applies to generic drug makers.

Drug Label Failed to Warn of Known Risk

Ibuprofen is a popular over-the-counter painkiller. The lawsuit says the drug is known to cause liver failure under some circumstances. The label contained no warnings about this potential side effect.

In 2009 the Supreme Court ruled drug makers can be sued for failing to warn of the risks of a medication even though the FDA has approved package or label warnings. This ruling makes clear the same standard applies to makers of the generic forms of the drug. Failure to warn is one of the main theories of product liability law.

By now everyone should be clear on the risks of liver damage associated with the two common aspirin alternatives. The FDA instructed drug makers to limit the amount of acetaminophen in prescription painkillers like oxycodone and hydrocodone. As this case shows, what you don’t know can hurt you.

By: Arthur Buono

–

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our experienced team of personal injury attorneys is dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their families and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury.  Our personal injury attorneys assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and throughout Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact our Westport office by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

Nightclub Owners Agree to $4.2 Million Settlement in Wrong-Way Crash Case

Leave a reply
Case Background

The parents of Connecticut College student Elizabeth Durante reached a settlement in their wrongful death lawsuit against the owners of the Ultra 88 nightclub at Mohegan Sun Thursday for $4.2 million.

Durante, a 20-year-old aspiring medical student, had recruited fellow students for a humanitarian mission to Uganda during spring break in March 2009 and was en route to the airport when she was killed in a wrong-way collision on Interstate 395 that was caused by an intoxicated nightclub patron Daniel Musser.

Durante’s parents, Keith and Kathleen Durante of Islip, N.Y., had sued the club’s Boston-based owners, Plan B LLC, and the Lyons Group, and its permittee, Patrick Lyons, claiming the nightclub had acted recklessly and negligently.

The Durantes and attorneys involved in the case agreed they would not comment publicly on the settlement, the details of which were put on the record Thursday afternoon by Hartford Superior Court Judge William H. Bright Jr.

The Settlement

The judge released a jury that had listened to two days of evidence in the case before the parties agreed to the $4.2 million figure. In reaching the settlement in state court, the Durantes also agreed to release the nightclub backers from a case that is pending in Mohegan tribal court, according to a court transcript.

New London attorneys Robert I. Reardon Jr. and Kelly E. Reardon represented the Durantes. Attorneys Scott Behman, Frank Ganz and Domenick Secundo from the Wallingford law firm Behman Hambelton represented the club and its backers.

Musser, then a sailor stationed at the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, had been drinking at Ultra 88 for several hours before he drove the wrong way out of the casino in the early morning hours of March 7, 2009. Musser’s car collided head-on near Exit 79A on I-395 with a van carrying Durante and seven other students to Logan Airport.

Pretrial Settlement Discussion

Pretrial settlement talks were unsuccessful, so the sides selected a jury and testimony began Tuesday in Hartford Superior Court. Bartender Sarah Webster, who sold Musser several drinks at the nightclub before calling security to eject him for lewd behavior, had been on the witness stand for several hours when the settlement talks resumed.

Musser, who had a 0.13 blood alcohol level following the crash and is serving a 75-month sentence for second-degree manslaughter, was slated to testify on Friday had the trial continued.

Three other students and the van driver had also sued Ultra 88 and had settled their lawsuits during jury selection. The Durantes had initially sued Mohegan tribal officials, but a judge ruled they had sovereign immunity.

In late 2009, following the deaths of Durante and two others that occurred after patrons left the casino under the influence of alcohol, the tribe said it was expanding its measures to prevent drunken driving.

By Karen Florin, theday.com

–

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our experienced team of personal injury attorneys is dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their families and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury.  Our personal injury attorneys assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and throughout Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating an auto accident, wrongful death claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact our Westport office by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

Surviving Medical Malpractice

Leave a reply

It sometimes seems that friends and family are constantly in and out of doctor’s offices and hospitals.  We once went six months straight with a different friend in the hospital each month.  Hospitals are amazing places staffed by people whose job is to help you get better.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen.  Sometimes people are beyond help.  Worse yet, sometimes the actions or inactions of the doctors or nurses can unnecessarily injure or kill a patient.  This happened to a friend of mine almost five years ago.  She is still paying off the medical bills from her hospitalization despite the fact that her doctor committed medical malpractice and she came within a few hours of dying.

So, what’s the problem, why is she paying off the bills, including the fees of the doctor that nearly killed her?  None of the attorneys she spoke to would take her case.  Why?  Because she lived.

Medical Malpractice Cases

That’s right.  If she had died they would have been happy to help her husband go after the people responsible, but because she lived they felt the damage wasn’t catastrophic enough.  Apparently weeks in the hospital, hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills that her insurance didn’t cover, and inability to work for about a year wasn’t catastrophic.  It was incomprehensible to me that medical professionals nearly killed her and then legal professionals did nothing to right the wrong.

I’ve done some research and discovered that my friend isn’t the only one who has been left out in the cold.  It turns out one of the reasons attorneys are so picky about the cases they accept is that it is very hard to win a medical malpractice case.  The things an attorney will consider in taking your case are:  liability, damages, and who would pay the damages.  If you think you have a potential medical malpractice claim, here are some things you should consider in deciding what to do next.

Do you live in a state that requires you to first try to work things out through mediation or arbitration? 

The process can vary from state to state so you may want to ask a legal professional in your state what to expect.

How long ago did this happen?

While there can be variants in different states’ statutes of limitations, if what happened was over two years ago you may find it hard to bring your claim now.  Seek the advice of a lawyer on this for your state’s particular rules and any factors that may extend the time you have to bring suit.

Was your doctor negligent? 

Negligence can come in many forms.  Common ones include: misdiagnosing a problem, failure to treat a problem correctly, giving the wrong medication, and failing to warn you of the risks of surgery or other procedures.  Of course, even if your doctor did misdiagnose you, that doesn’t automatically mean you can take him to court and win.  The question then becomes: was that a common enough misdiagnosis that other doctors would have made the same mistake?  That leads to the next question.

How would your doctor’s actions compare to those of other doctors? 

If the average practitioner would have done the exact same thing, you’re probably not going to be able to win a lawsuit.  Your doctor’s actions have to be judged in light of a standard of care observed by doctors.  This guarantees that you can’t go after a doctor just because he isn’t on the cutting edge of research or number one in his field.  If your doctor’s actions were in line with accepted medical practice, then he’s probably covered.  However, if other doctors are surprised or perplexed by the actions of the one who caused your injury, you might be able to bring a case against him.

What damages did you suffer? 

This is another one of those fuzzy areas.  Of course, some damages such as medical bills are obvious.  However, you also need to think in terms of loss of ability, pain and suffering and what the short and long term effects will be.  What makes this difficult is that this varies greatly from person to person.  For example, loss of a toe for a professional dancer could be much more catastrophic than for a banker.  The physical marring and the loss of balance could negatively impact a dancer’s work and income whereas a banker should be able to do his work just fine without the toe.

There are a lot of factors that affect a medical malpractice case.  If you think you have one, seek out an attorney as soon as possible.  Keep in mind the above list so you know what to ask and what to expect from the meeting.  Don’t be too shocked if the attorney refuses to take your case.  Do seek out a second opinion, just like you would from a doctor!

However, if multiple attorneys tell you the same thing then the best thing you can do for yourself is let it go.  Work on recovering physically and financially as fast as you can.  A lawyer can help you work out the details of your medical financial obligations and how to best handle them.  The important thing is to do what you can to minimize the impact and get on with the rest of your life and do your best to thrive, not just survive!

By: lawyers.com

–

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our experienced team of personal injury attorneys is dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their families and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury.  Our personal injury attorneys assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and throughout Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact our Westport office by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

Employer Not Liable for Doing “Stupid” or Even “Wicked” Things

Leave a reply
Case Background

Employment discrimination laws protect employees from discrimination.  They do not protect against “ordinary workplace experiences” that offend one’s sensibilities or result in hurt feelings.  A Connecticut woman found that out the hard way when a Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against her.  There was no dispute as to any material fact and the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Thus, there was no need for a trial on the merits.

The employee in question was fired from her “at will” position as Public Relations Coordinator for a large corporation because of her volatile workplace behavior spanning three years.  She claimed that she was fired because of her age, and that she had suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result.

Establishing a “But For” Cause

Under the applicable law, the employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.  If she does, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.  Assuming such a reason, the employee may then prevail if she can show that the employer’s action was in fact the result of discrimination, i.e., that the stated reason is “pretextual.”

The employee must further prove that age was a “but for” cause for the challenged action and not merely a contributing or motivating factor.  In this case, the employee was unable to show that her age was the sole, i.e., “but for” cause of her termination.

Conclusions

In fairness to the employer, the employee’s insubordination was evident from the record.  On one occasion, the employee asked her manger if she had “stopped taking her medication.”  Nor did some favorable evaluations raise a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext.  The court concluded that isolated positive feedback was entirely consistent with the explanation for her termination: sporadic inappropriate behavior over the course of several years.  A reasonable jury would have no reason to doubt the employer’s explanation for the employee’s discharge.

The employee also complained about the “tone” that was used with her and that she was “distraught” about negative comments she received.  This formed the basis for her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The court had no trouble dismissing this claim, as well.  “These ordinary workplace experiences clearly do not rise to the level of being ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.’”

It was in this context that the court made the observation that employers are not liable for doing stupid or even wicked things in the absence of a sufficient connection between the employee’s age and termination of her employment.

–

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues. Please contact our Westport office at 203-221-3100.

‘Distracted Doctoring’ a Danger to Patients

Leave a reply
Distractions From Patient Care

A survey found that 55 percent of technicians monitoring bypass machines admitted to talking on cell phones during surgery. Half admitted to texting while in surgery. A widely read editorial in Anesthesiology News by Peter J. Papadakos, MD, says health care workers today are “fixated on computer screens” and rarely receive information directly from their patients. Papadakos referred to a study presented to the American Society of Anesthesiologists this year that said nurse anesthetists and residents were distracted by something other than patient care in 54 percent of cases. The study further cited surfing the Internet as the primary distraction. All of these distractions serve as a potential danger to patients.

Additionally, a report in The New York Times cited polls of medical professionals in which a majority of respondents admitted using cellphones during critical procedures. The Times cited a survey of medical technicians published in Perfusion, a journal about cardio-pulmonary bypass surgery, which found that 55 percent of technicians who monitor bypass machines acknowledged talking on cell phones during heart surgery and half said they had texted while in surgery.

“Why does anyone carry a cell phone into an operating room?” Patrick A. Salvi, managing equity partner of Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard P.C. in Chicago, asked. “The patient on the table deserves the undivided attention of everyone in that room.”

Malpractice of Healthcare Workers

Salvi, a medical malpractice attorney, expressed concern that healthcare workers’ increased reliance on electronic devices has become a distraction that has led to medical errors and injuries.

“We’re dismayed by reports that say doctors, nurses, technicians and others providing medical care are spending too much time focused on smartphones, computer screens and other devices when they should be paying attention to their patients.” “We’re not against the use of electronic devices for delivery of medical records or even personal communication, but it is absolutely crucial that a focus on the patient is not dropped from the accepted standards of medical care,” said Salvi.

Anyone believing their injuries or the injury or death of a loved one in a hospital or another medical setting may have been caused by medical errors resulting from distraction should contact an experienced medical malpractice attorney immediately.

By: Larry Bodine

–

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our experienced team of personal injury attorneys is dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their families and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury.  Our personal injury attorneys assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and throughout Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to a medical malpractice claims, medical negligence or injury, or a personal injury claim or would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact our Westport office by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Mother Receives $1.4 Million Award for Post Traumatic Stress from Childbirth Tragedy

Leave a reply
Case Background

A Kentucky jury awarded $1.4 million to a woman who witnessed the decapitation of her baby at delivery. The jury held the two doctors in attendance liable for the mother’s emotional distress. She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the tragedy.

The doctors had used a cerclage to keep the woman’s cervix closed. Despite this delivery ensued, with the baby exiting feet first. The doctors attempted to deliver the baby but neglected to remove the cerclage. This acted like a noose, and the baby’s head was severed.

The Aftermath

Mark W. Mathys represented the woman, “There were no damages for wrongful death of the baby,” he said, “because the jury decided it would not have survived a normal delivery due to prematurity. But besides that, the mother witnessed the delivery first of the baby’s body and then of its severed head.

“Ms. Donelson suffers from post traumatic stress disorder as a result. She has DVD-like recall of what happened. She loves children and was pursuing a bachelor’s degree to work with them but has since abandoned that. Now when she sees children she recalls this tragedy.”

Mathys said that Ms. Donelson had been recuperating at her family’s home about a month when the decision was made to contact a lawyer. It was family members who did so.

It might be obvious to a someone who is not a doctor or a lawyer that something went wrong in this case. But because of the prematurity, it might also be easy to conclude that the baby’s death was unavoidable. That’s what the doctors said, after all.

Nor would a layperson necessarily know that the mother had herself been injured and was entitled to compensation. That makes a lawyer’s evaluation of a case so important.

“With emotional problems like PTSD ,” Mathys says, “people often don’t want to admit they’re suffering. They don’t know to seek help.”

Malpractice in the Hospital

This case also points out, again, the need for patients to be proactive in their medical care. Mathys says, “It helps if a family member or friend stays with a patient in the hospital. But even if you’re alone, like Ms. Donelson was, it’s important to be proactive in your own care to ensure you’re getting the attention you need when you need it. What’s also tragic is that Ms. Donelson did call for the nurse when she felt the baby coming, but they did not respond immediately.”

By: Arthur Buono

–

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our experienced team of personal injury attorneys is dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their families and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury.  Our personal injury attorneys assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and throughout Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to a medical malpractice claim, medical negligence, or a personal injury claim and would like to schedule a free consultation, please contact our Westport office by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

For Want of a Comma, Wal-Mart Can Fire Medical Marijuana User

Leave a reply
Case Background

Medical marijuana is legal in Michigan.  When Joseph Casias was 17, he was diagnosed with sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor.  When Michigan legalized medical marijuana in 2008, Casias’ oncologist recommended he use marijuana for relief of pain and side effects of other pain medications.  Casias used marijuana while employed at a Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, Michigan, although he made sure never to be under its influence while at work.

When Casias was injured on the job, company policy required that he be administered a drug test.  He tested positive for marijuana and was fired a week later.  Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act states that “a qualifying patient . . . shall not be subject to arrest or . . . disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau . . . .”  Casias sued Wal-Mart for wrongful discharge and violation of the Act, claiming that the law proscribes “disciplinary action [against a medical marijuana patient] by a business.”

The Court’s Decision

A federal District Court and Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the statute, as written, refers to three types of licensing boards or bureaus—business, occupational, and professional.  The appellate court reasoned that the statute precluded disciplinary action by only the specified licensing boards, and not by a private business.  Since the law offered Casias no protection from termination, the court saw no reason to overturn Wal-Mart’s firing of Casias notwithstanding his immunity from criminal prosecution related to possession or use of marijuana.

This is a case of the court’s holding that a legislature meant what it said, irrespective of what it might have meant to say.  More careful drafting or punctuation of the Michigan Act might have saved Casias’ job.  Perhaps the Michigan legislature will amend its Medical Marijuana Act to state more clearly that an employee who is a legally permitted user may not be disciplined by an employer for its use.  Until then, casually drafted statutes will remain a trap for the unwary.

–

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of workplace-related claims and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield and resolving such issues.  (203) 221-3100.

Only Connecticut Employees Count Toward CFMLA Threshold

Leave a reply
What is the CFMLA?

The Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act (CFMLA) requires employers who employ 75 or more employees to provide eligible employees with 16 weeks of leave during any 24-month period for a variety of reasons, most concerning a serious health condition of a family member.  The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently held that Connecticut employers are not subject to the CFMLA unless they employ at least 75 employees within the state.  In this day and age of “virtual workplaces,” the decision of the Court offers certainty to employers but may deprive employees working remotely of CFMLA coverage.

Valez v. Commissioner of Labor

In Valez v. Commissioner of Labor, Nos. SC 18683-84 (Sept. 25, 2012), the plaintiff worked as a full-time office manager at a Hartford apartment complex.  Her actual employer had over 1000 employees nationwide, but fewer than 75 within the State of Connecticut.  The plaintiff requested and received 12 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act but when she was unable to return to her job due to medical restrictions, she was terminated.

A complaint to the Connecticut Department of Labor alleging violation of the CFMLA was unavailing as the hearing officer determined that the employer had fewer than 75 employees in Connecticut and was therefore exempt from the statute.  An appeal to the Superior Court was successful, as the Judge ruled that the CFMLA applied to employers that employ 75+ employees irrespective of their geographic location.

On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding that the CFMLA applies only to employers with 75+ employees physically within the State.  The Supreme Court felt that the lower court had failed to demonstrate appropriate deference to the Connecticut Labor Commissioner’s interpretation of the statutory term “employer” and his interpretation of who constitutes an “employee” for purposes of the CFMLA.

The Valez decision introduces a degree of certainty for employers with fewer than 75 employees in Connecticut.  Before, some national employers were following CFMLA even though they were exempt from the federal FMLA as a result of having fewer than 50 employees within a 75 mile radius.  Employees, too, can now be sure of their rights as it is settled that only employees within the state of Connecticut will count toward applicability of the CFMLA.

–

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues.  203-221-3100.

Bullying in the Workplace—the Next Litigation Frontier?

Leave a reply
Workplace Bullying

The Connecticut General Assembly enacted legislation to address student bullying in the school setting.  Now some states have turned their attention to bullying in the workplace.  The new statutes, if enacted, would create a new cause of action for employment discrimination—bullying.

Since 2003, 21 states have proposed legislation to rein in workplace bullying.  Many states have been working off of a model act (the Healthy Workplace Bill) authored by Suffolk University Law School professor David Yamada.  The bill defines workplace bullying as the “repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators that takes one or more of the following forms: verbal abuse; offensive conduct/behaviors (including nonverbal) which are threatening, humiliating, or intimidating; work interference—sabotage—which prevents work from getting done.”

Adopting Legislation 

According to a 2010 study, 35% of U.S. workers claim to have been bullied at work.  Absent a statutory cause of action, victims have claimed that employers have breached the terms of an employee handbook that requires employees to act professionally.  Such arguments are a stretch and a bullied employee would be much better served by a clearly stated statutory claim.

Anticipating adoption of the proposed legislation, many companies are incorporating anti-bullying training into in-house sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training.  There is a huge collateral benefit to ridding the workplace of bullies—they are extremely detrimental to employee morale and productivity.  As with other anti-discrimination statutes, an employer can avoid vicarious liability by instituting and enforcing a reasonable bullying prevention and protection policy.  In addition, a successful claimant must show demonstrable harm as a result of workplace bullying or an adverse employment action for reporting such activity.  Hurt feelings are not enough.

Reportedly, New York and Massachusetts are on the verge of passing anti-bullying statutes.  Connecticut has yet to weigh in on the issue.

–

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues.  Please contact our offices at 203-221-3100.