Adding to the growing number of states limiting employers’ use of credit reports, including Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Maryland), Connecticut recently passed Public Act No. 11-223 restricting employer use of credit reports and credit history for employees or job applicants. The Connecticut law goes into effect October 1, 2011, and prohibits employers from requiring an employee or job applicant to consent to a request for a credit report “as a condition of employment.” This includes reports that contain information about credit score, credit account balances, payment history, savings or checking account balances or savings or checking account numbers.
The law has four exceptions. Paraphrasing from the law, employers may request credit data if:
Regarding the last exception, the law broadly defines “substantially related to the job” to mean that the information contained in the credit report is related to the following: a managerial position that involves setting direction and control of the business; a position that involves access to customers, employees or the employer’s personal or financial information (other than retail transaction information); involves a fiduciary responsibility to the employer; provides an expense account or corporate debit or credit card; provides access to confidential or proprietary business information; or involves access to the employer’s nonfinancial assets valued at $2,005 or more, including but not limited to, museum and library collections and to prescription drugs and other pharmaceuticals.
Job applicants and employees may lodge complaints alleging violations of the law with the Connecticut Labor Department. Employers will be liable to the Labor Department for a civil penalty of $300 for each improper request for a credit check. The Connecticut Attorney General can bring civil actions to recover penalties brought by the Labor Department.
As a result of these new restrictions, Connecticut employers should review hiring policies, and other policies that require employee credit information, and prepare to comply with the law by October 1, 2011.
On June 8, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law legislation mandating paid sick leave for certain employees.
Public Act No. 11-52 requires employers of 50 or more employees to provide up to five paid sick days per year to service workers. Occupations covered by the law include bus drivers, food service workers, home health aides, nurses, retail salespersons, administrative assistants, restaurant servers, and others.
Employees earn one hour of sick time for each 40 hours worked. Service workers who receive at least five paid days per year (e.g., vacation, personal days, paid time off) are not covered by the law if they can use those days for sick leave.
The law goes into effect January 1, 2012.
The app is available in Spanish and English and tracks regular work hours, break time and overtime for one or more employers. The app also provides a glossary of terms, contacts and links to the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division. Users can add comments to reports and email their summary of work hours and gross pay as an attachment.
According to Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis, “This app will help empower workers to understand and stand up for their rights when employers have denied their hard-earned pay.” According to the DOL’s press release, the information could prove invaluable during a Wage and Hour Division investigation when an employer has failed to maintain accurate employment records.
A printable version is available for workers without a smartphone. The printable work hours calendar tracks rate of pay, work start and stop times and provides easy-to-understand information on how to file a wage violation complaint.
To download the app or calendar go to ITunes, DOL-Timesheet. “Keeping track of wages: the U.S. Labor Department has an app for that!” www.dol.com (May 9, 2011).
The case involves an employee who, in advance of a meeting with management about working conditions, posted to her Facebook page a coworker’s allegation that employees did not do enough to help the organization’s clients. The initial post generated responses from other employees who defended their job performance and criticized working conditions, including workload and staffing issues. After learning of the posts, the nonprofit discharged the five employees who participated, claiming that their comments constituted harassment of the employee originally mentioned in the post.
Unless the case is settled, the complaint will be the subject of a hearing before an administrative law judge on June 22.

The employer argued to the lower court that the FLSA only protects written complaints and filed a motion for summary judgment. The lower court granted the employer’s motion on a determination that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision does not cover oral complaints. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and affirmed.
The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower courts on appeal. According to the highest Court, oral complaints regarding violations of the FLSA are protected by the Act’s anti-retaliation provision. The Court reasoned that limiting the coverage to written complaints undermines the Act’s basic objective which is to prohibit, “labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers.” The Court noted that enforcement of the FLSA relies on complaints received from employees to meet the objectives set out in the Act. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 09-834, 563 U.S. ___ (2011.)
Commentary and Checklist
The FLSA anti-retaliation provision, at issue in this case, makes it illegal to:
The employer in Kasten argued that “filed any complaint” means that the complaint must be written to activate the anti-retaliation provision. The Supreme Court disagreed based on the purpose and intent of the statute.
Employers should take note that the new rule likely applies to other employment laws with similar anti-retaliation provisions. For example, OSHA is another law that contains similar anti-retaliation language.
So, what does this mean for employers?…While it is a good idea for employers to make sure that all complaints of wrongdoing are put into writing, the FLSA does not require it. Employees who make good faith reports of wrongdoing or participate in an investigation of alleged wrongdoing warrant protection from retaliation.
The struggle for employers is discerning when a person’s statements about the FLSA is a complaint or is simply a suggestion, concern or desire. For example, what if someone states to their manager that they wish to be paid more overtime. Does this comment rise to the level of complaint regarding the person’s overtime classification or is the person simply expressing a desire to earn more money?
Retaliation was the most common charge with the EEOC last year. The conduct of a manager may greatly increase his employer’s risk of liability with behavior or acts that give rise to a retaliation charges. One way for employers to avoid charges of discrimination and retaliation is to provide multiple avenues for employees to report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. Managers should encourage rather than discourage reporting so that potential issues can be resolved before they escalate into serious problems.
Employers should also establish an open reporting system whereby employees can complain internally to their employer without fear of retribution or retaliation.
Below are additional steps you can take to guard your organization against claims of retaliation: