We are nearly sold out for our fall in person Labor & Employment Seminar scheduled for this Thursday at Hotel Marcel in New Haven.
The afternoon program has everything an employer needs to know including sessions on the accommodations, recent court decisions, and a plethora of new Connecticut laws that went into effect this month.
Joining the program I’m moderating will be Chris Davis, the Senior Vice President, Public Policy at Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA). He’s going to share his insights on this past legislative session and give us a preview of what to expect in the 2027 term.

The seminar, as always, is free to attend with advance registration and features a networking session afterwards with so much food. I’m even hearing that we’re going to have some New Haven Apizza there as well.

Be sure to sign up for one of the last few seats remaining. We look forward to seeing you all this Thursday. Registration details available here: https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/events/2026-labor-and-employment-law-fall-seminar.html

October 1 may not seem like a big day, but for employers, today’s the day that a bunch of new employment laws become effective.

None of this should be a surprise if you’ve followed this blog; I’ve reported on all the developments over the last several months. But if this has still caught you off guard, I’ve got some highlights below and encourage clients to attend our in-person seminar later this month. This post only covers some of the assortment of laws that went into effect today and is not intended as a replacement for individualized advice we provide to clients about all applicable laws.

All Employers: Wage Transparency Gets a Major Expansion (Effective October 1, 2026)

Effective October 1, 2026, all employers must ensure their internal and public job postings list the position’s wage range and a general description of benefits.  Benefits includes health insurance, retirement, fringe benefits, paid leave, and other non-wage compensation.  

The new law also expands anti-retaliation protections to prohibit refusing to interview, hire, or promote, or terminating any applicant or employee for exercising their rights under this section. Notably, the bill removes the availability of punitive damages but extends the statute of limitations from a one-year window to two years after the violation.

All Employers: Employment Promissory Notes Are Effectively Banned (Effective October 1, 2026)

The new law dramatically expands the prohibition on employment promissory notes.  The promissory notes require employees to repay employers if they leave before a stated period of time.  They are often instituted to assist employers in recouping any training costs that may be lost if an employee leaves prematurely, and were already banned in Connecticut for large employers.  But the new law expands the ban to all employers.  Any employment promissory note executed on or after October 1, 2026, that requires an employee to repay the employer if the employee leaves before a stated period will be void as against public policy. 

Certain exceptions remain: agreements requiring repayment of advances, payment for property sold or leased to the employee, educational personnel sabbatical leave terms, and collectively bargained programs are not affected. 

All Employers: Mandatory Lactation Accommodations (Effective October 1, 2026)

Employers must now “provide reasonable break times” for employees to express breast milk or breastfeed on site, and these breaks must be in addition to the employee’s regularly scheduled breaks. Previously, the law merely allowed employees to use meal or break periods at their discretion.

Employers must also make reasonable efforts to provide a private room (not a toilet stall) that is free from intrusion and shielded from the public, situated near a refrigerator or portable cold storage device, and includes access to an electrical outlet.  Anti-retaliation protections apply, and the law covers any employer with one or more employees.

All Employers: New ADA Accommodation Notice Requirement (Effective October 1, 2026)

The new law creates an entirely new notice obligation: employers must provide written notice of an employee’s right to reasonable accommodations under the ADA to (1) new employees at the commencement of employment, (2) existing employees within 120 days of October 1, 2026, and (3) any employee who notifies the employer of a disability, within 10 days of notification.  Employers may comply by displaying the poster created by the Labor Commissioner in a conspicuous, accessible location.

Large Employers: Pay Stub Transparency (Effective October 1, 2026)

All employers with 100 or more employees – public and private – face a new obligation to create and publish a guide to their pay codes for overtime and commonly used pay differentials—including shift differentials, on-call pay, hazard pay, call-back pay, holiday or weekend pay, and geographical differentials.  The guide must include at least 10 pay codes (if applicable), be posted on the employer’s website in English, Spanish, and the other most common languages spoken by employees, and include contact information for a designated individual who will handle disputes regarding hours and pay calculations.

Construction Employers: Prevailing Wage and Certified Payroll Enhancements (Effective October 1, 2026)

The new law adds a daily record-keeping requirement for employers on public works projects. Each employer must maintain a daily record of all mechanics, laborers, and workers at the site, including their name, trade license number, and arrival and departure times.  These records must be submitted weekly to the contracting agency, and they are public records subject to inspection. Failure to file the daily records is a class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to three months, or both.

Cannabis Employers: Industry Labor Peace Agreements (Effective October 1, 2026)

The new law updates the cannabis labor peace agreement framework, clarifying that workers at cannabis establishments, dispensary facilities, and producers may not have their wages supplemented by gratuities for minimum wage purposes.  Any such employer paying less than the minimum fair wage is in violation of the law. The bill also maintains the requirement for provisional licensees to enter labor peace agreements as a condition of final license approval.

AI & Employment Law (Effective October 1, 2026)

Beginning October 1, 2026, any employer that serves written notice to the Department of Labor under the federal WARN Act must also disclose whether the layoffs are related to the employer’s use of artificial intelligence or another technological change, in the form and manner the Labor Commissioner prescribes.

As discussed in a prior post, there are also changes to the state’s anti-discrimination laws so that AI cannot be used as a defense to discrimination cases.

All Employers: Electronic Monitoring Revisions (Effective October 1, 2026)

As I covered last month, there are three main changes employers need to understand.

Notices must now include specific monitoring locations. Under the old law, employers had to tell employees the types of electronic monitoring that may occur. The new law adds a second requirement: employers must also disclose the specific locations on the employer’s premises where monitoring may occur.

That means your notice can no longer just say “we may monitor computer usage and telephone calls.” It now has to identify where that monitoring is happening. If you have cameras in the warehouse, monitoring software on workstations in a particular department, or recording equipment in the call center, those specific locations need to be called out.

Posting requirements are expanded. The old law required employers to post a notice in a conspicuous place readily available for employees to view. The new law keeps that requirement but goes further. Now, the notice must also be posted in the specific location where the monitoring occurs. So if you monitor employees in three different areas of your facility, the notice needs to be posted in each of those areas as well.

New hires must receive a plain language written statement. For any employee hired on or after October 1, 2026, employers must provide a written statement in plain language, before the employee starts work, advising which activities are prohibited and may be monitored without prior notice. This refers to the law’s existing exception that allows employers to monitor without notice when they have reasonable grounds to believe an employee is engaged in conduct that violates the law, violates the legal rights of the employer or other employees, or creates a hostile workplace environment.

All Employers: Other Laws To Consider

There are several other laws that are worth considering too. For example, Public Act 26-28 now states that employer-required security screening time is compensable. Public Act 26-12/17 now requires daily sign-in logs on public works.

And of course, effective January 1, 2027, minimum wage will go up to $17.48 per hour too.

There’s this “old” (relative term) song that has a earworm of a chorus – I always feel like somebody’s watchin’ me And I have no privacy like somebody’s watchin’ me Tell me, is it just a dream? Who’s playing tricks on me? 

Perhaps the General Assembly heard that song too while considering, and then passing Public Act 26-73, into law. The Act makes significant changes to Connecticut’s longstanding Electronic Monitoring Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-48d), which has been on the books since 1998. If you’re an employer in Connecticut that monitors employees electronically in any way, you have some work to do before the new law takes effect on October 1, 2026.

I’ve written about Connecticut’s electronic monitoring law a number of times on this blog over the years, in fact it was the subject of one of my first blog posts back in 2007 (!). The basic framework hasn’t changed much since then: if you’re going to monitor your employees electronically, you have to tell them about it.

The new law doesn’t change that core requirement. But it does expand what employers have to disclose, where they have to post notices, and what they have to tell new hires.

Let me walk you through what’s new and what you should be doing now.

What Counts as “Electronic Monitoring”?

The new law doesn’t change the definition of electronic monitoring, which remains broad. It covers the collection of information on an employer’s premises concerning employees’ activities or communications by any means other than direct observation. That includes the use of computers, telephones, wire, radio, cameras, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical systems.

Two things are excluded from the definition: security monitoring of common areas open to the public and any information collection that is already prohibited under state or federal law.

Here is the practical takeaway. Think about what your company actually does. If you have security cameras in the office, monitor computer activity, track keystrokes, record phone calls, or use software to monitor employee productivity, you are almost certainly engaged in electronic monitoring under this law. And with the rise of AI-based tools that can track everything from keystrokes to break time to email content, the reach of this definition is broader today than when it was first written in 1998.

What’s Changed?

There are three main changes employers need to understand.

Notices must now include specific monitoring locations. Under the old law, employers had to tell employees the types of electronic monitoring that may occur. The new law adds a second requirement: employers must also disclose the specific locations on the employer’s premises where monitoring may occur.

That means your notice can no longer just say “we may monitor computer usage and telephone calls.” It now has to identify where that monitoring is happening. If you have cameras in the warehouse, monitoring software on workstations in a particular department, or recording equipment in the call center, those specific locations need to be called out.

Posting requirements are expanded. The old law required employers to post a notice in a conspicuous place readily available for employees to view. The new law keeps that requirement but goes further. Now, the notice must also be posted in the specific location where the monitoring occurs. So if you monitor employees in three different areas of your facility, the notice needs to be posted in each of those areas as well.

New hires must receive a plain language written statement. For any employee hired on or after October 1, 2026, employers must provide a written statement in plain language, before the employee starts work, advising which activities are prohibited and may be monitored without prior notice. This refers to the law’s existing exception that allows employers to monitor without notice when they have reasonable grounds to believe an employee is engaged in conduct that violates the law, violates the legal rights of the employer or other employees, or creates a hostile workplace environment.

This is a new obligation. Employers have never had to provide this kind of standalone written statement to new hires before.

What Hasn’t Changed?

A few things remain the same.

The exception for monitoring without prior notice still exists. Employers can still monitor without giving advance notice if they have reasonable grounds to believe that employees are engaged in conduct that violates the law, violates the legal rights of the employer or other employees, or creates a hostile work environment, and the monitoring may produce evidence of that misconduct. That exception has been part of the statute since 1998, and it survives intact.

Enforcement hasn’t changed either. The Labor Commissioner can levy civil penalties for violations of the notice requirements: $500 for the first offense, $1,000 for the second, and $3,000 for the third and each subsequent offense. There is no private right of action under this statute, as the Connecticut Supreme Court confirmed in Gerardi v. City of Bridgeport.

The criminal investigation exception also remains. The statute does not apply to criminal investigations, and information obtained through electronic monitoring during a criminal investigation can be used in disciplinary proceedings.

Two New Exceptions to Location Disclosure

The law adds two exceptions to the requirement that employers disclose the specific locations where monitoring occurs. First, the location disclosure requirement does not apply to airports. Second, it does not apply when an employer has reasonable grounds to conduct monitoring for security and employee safety purposes.

These are narrow exceptions. Most employers will not qualify for them. But if you operate at an airport facility or are conducting monitoring specifically for security and safety reasons, you should take note.

Don’t Forget the Related New Law

While you’re at it, be aware that the General Assembly also passed Public Act 26-89, which creates an exception to the electronic surveillance restrictions for self-service kiosks operated by third-party vendors in employee lounges. If your workplace has these kinds of kiosks (think vending-style checkout terminals), the monitoring systems associated with them are now permitted so long as they don’t record sound and only capture the checkout and display areas. Employers cannot request to view that video or use it for disciplinary purposes, except in cases of alleged theft reported by the vendor.

What Should Employers Do Now?

October 1 is approaching fast. Here are the steps you should be taking.

Audit your monitoring practices. Take stock of every form of electronic monitoring your company uses. Cameras, computer monitoring software, telephone recording, badge access systems, GPS tracking, AI-based productivity tools: all of it. You need a complete picture before you can update your notices.

Update your posted notices. Your existing electronic monitoring notice likely only describes the types of monitoring. Revise it to include the specific locations on your premises where monitoring occurs. The Connecticut Department of Labor has historically provided a template notice; you should watch for an updated version.

Post notices at monitored locations. In addition to your existing conspicuous posting location, make sure a notice is also posted in or near each specific location where monitoring takes place.

Create the new hire statement. Draft a plain language written statement for employees hired on or after October 1, 2026, explaining which activities are prohibited and may be subject to monitoring without prior notice. Think about things like unauthorized access to confidential information, misuse of company systems, harassment conducted via electronic means, and similar misconduct. This statement must be provided before the employee starts work, so build it into your onboarding process now.

Think about AI tools. If you’ve deployed any AI-based monitoring or productivity tools, make sure those are reflected in your notices. The law’s broad definition of electronic monitoring almost certainly captures automated tools that track keystrokes, analyze communications, monitor screen activity, or otherwise collect data about employee behavior on the employer’s premises.

Train HR and management. Make sure the people responsible for onboarding, workplace compliance, and employee relations understand the new requirements. They need to know when notice is required, when the misconduct exception applies, and how the new hire statement should be distributed.

Talk to your employment counsel. If you have questions about how these changes apply to your specific monitoring practices, this is the time to have that conversation.

We’ll be watching (metaphorically, that is....)

Writing about 9/11 from an employment law angle seems a bit out of place. Back in 2008, it seemed easier to write about building evacuation drills on my blog, than something more meaningful.

In part, it was probably because for many years, it just uncomfortable thinking about the scale of the law. Despite numerous visits to New York and a few visits to the memorial, it took me until 2024 to finally feel strong enough to visit the 9/11 museum.

The memorial outside is remarkable for its scale but also its simplicity.

But it’s in the museum down below, that the day and the people involved are stirred from their silence.

You see not only the pictures and artifacts of that date, but also the sounds. The frantic calls to family members. The news reports in disbelief. The sirens. The sound of the towers crashing down.

It’s haunting, but in Judaism, honoring and remembering the dead is so woven into the fabric of the religion that we say a prayer for those who have passed at each service and we have an expression we say: May their memory be for a blessing.

So, on this 25th anniversary of 9/11, I wanted to take my part to honor someone I never met, but whose life is connected to my family’s.

On that visit to the memorial, I found the name of Amy Toyen. You may not have heard of her, but she was from our town in Avon, Connecticut. She was just 24 years old and was attending a trade conference in one of the towers when the plane hit. I never knew Amy but I got to learn about her through our town.

Then, when my kids were in high school — the same high school that Amy graduated from years earlier — we met Heather Toyen, Amy’s sister. Heather became the kids’ guidance counselor and helped us navigate the stressful years of college applications and decisions. She was our blessing.

In a recent interview, Heather noted that the kids she now guides in high school weren’t alive back then but that people still honor her sister’s memory. Its yet another reminder to pass on what we remember to honor those who passed before us.

And so on this date, like we did back then, we should put aside the employment law issues we have, if only for a moment, and honor those we lost on that date and always.

Can it really be nineteen years?

I did the math twice, just to be sure. And yes, it was September 2007 when I clicked “Publish” on my first Welcome post and launched this little experiment called the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

(Technically, the actual anniversary was Saturday, September 6th, but I wasn’t about to make you read a retrospective over Labor Day weekend. Even employment lawyers take the holiday off. Mostly.)

It was the spring of 2007 and I was at an ABA Young Lawyers Division conference in Montreal. I woke up early, on very little sleep, to hear Kevin O’Keefe from LexBlog talk about how lawyers could start blogs. Beyond the, “I probably need coffee”, I sat there thinking two things: “This sounds interesting” and “I think I could do this.”

The second thought was probably a remnant from my college days, when I spent way too many hours as an editor at The Daily Pennsylvanian. A lot of my friends from the newspaper went into media. I went to law school. But I always had that itch to write. The blog was a way to scratch it.

I remember Kevin asking me what I was going to call it. He suggested a geographic area and a practice area.

“Connecticut Employment Law Blog?”

Sure. That’s specific enough.

Over the summer of 2007, we designed the thing, and by September, I was live. My goal was modest:

I hope you will stick around for the first (and as far as I know, only) Connecticut blog that will focus on new and noteworthy developments in the employment law arena, particularly as they may impact those in Connecticut.

That’s it. That was the whole pitch. One lawyer in Connecticut, writing about employment law, hoping somebody would read it.

Turns out, 19 years later, more than a few of you are still reading it, so thanks.

]]>

Can it really be nineteen years?

I did the math twice, just to be sure. And yes, it was September 2007 when I clicked “Publish” on my first Welcome post and launched this little experiment called the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

(Technically, the actual anniversary was Saturday, September 6th, but I wasn’t about to make you read a retrospective over Labor Day weekend. Even employment lawyers take the holiday off. Mostly.)

It was the spring of 2007 and I was at an ABA Young Lawyers Division conference in Montreal. I woke up early, on very little sleep, to hear Kevin O’Keefe from LexBlog talk about how lawyers could start blogs. Beyond the, “I probably need coffee”, I sat there thinking two things: “This sounds interesting” and “I think I could do this.”

The second thought was probably a remnant from my college days, when I spent way too many hours as an editor at The Daily Pennsylvanian. A lot of my friends from the newspaper went into media. I went to law school. But I always had that itch to write. The blog was a way to scratch it.

I remember Kevin asking me what I was going to call it. He suggested a geographic area and a practice area.

“Connecticut Employment Law Blog?”

Sure. That’s specific enough.

Over the summer of 2007, we designed the thing, and by September, I was live. My goal was modest:

I hope you will stick around for the first (and as far as I know, only) Connecticut blog that will focus on new and noteworthy developments in the employment law arena, particularly as they may impact those in Connecticut.

That’s it. That was the whole pitch. One lawyer in Connecticut, writing about employment law, hoping somebody would read it.

Turns out, 19 years later, more than a few of you are still reading it, so thanks.

I recently had the pleasure of joining the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Podcast for a conversation about one of the most important — and fastest-moving — topics in our field right now: artificial intelligence in the workplace.

The episode, titled “AI Tools and Labor Law: Legal Guardrails and Looming Minefields,” is hosted by Matt Greer, a longtime labor relations neutral and member of the ABA Labor and Employment Law Section. Joining me as a fellow guest was Nina Pirrotti, a partner with Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C. here in Connecticut and a highly experienced employee-side attorney. Regular readers of this blog will remember that Nina has appeared here many times before — and as always, she brought a sharp and thoughtful perspective to the discussion.

During the episode, Nina and I explored how employers and job seekers are already using AI — and what organizations need to be thinking about as these tools become more embedded in the workplace. We covered a lot of ground, including:

• AI in hiring and recruiting — from resume screening and drafting job descriptions to performance reviews and even sending rejection letters. The question we kept coming back to: when does efficiency cross the line into replacing human judgment?
• The AI arms race between employers and job seekers — as Nina put it, “It truly is an AI arms race.” Job seekers are using AI to generate resumes and cover letters tailored to match job descriptions, sometimes even burying coding inside applications designed to convince AI screeners to select them (something that has been termed a “prompt injection attack”). And employers, overwhelmed by the resulting flood of applications, are turning to AI to screen them. It’s a cycle that is only accelerating.
• Discrimination and liability risks — AI tools have the potential to discriminate against people who may be qualified but have a disability, are neurodivergent, or simply don’t meet the “norms” a program has been trained to recognize. The legal exposure here is real, and the potential for class action litigation is something every employer should have on its radar.
• The growing patchwork of state laws — as I noted during the conversation, even if you decided that federal law doesn’t require you to worry as much, you still need to worry about various state laws. And with remote employees working in multiple states, all bets are off. Connecticut’s own AI Responsibility and Transparency Act is just one example of the state-level regulatory landscape that employers need to navigate.

We also discussed key legal frameworks that remain foundational that are shaping how courts and regulators approach AI-driven employment decisions.

You can listen to the full episode on the ABA’s website here. Whether you’re commuting, working out, or just looking for something more substantive than your usual playlist, it’s a conversation worth your time.

My thanks to Matt Greer for hosting and for facilitating such a balanced and engaging discussion, and to Nina Pirrotti for being a terrific conversation partner. One of the things I’ve always appreciated about the ABA’s podcast is its commitment to bringing together voices from different sides of the table — management and employee perspectives — and this episode was no exception.

]]>

I recently had the pleasure of joining the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Podcast for a conversation about one of the most important — and fastest-moving — topics in our field right now: artificial intelligence in the workplace.

The episode, titled “AI Tools and Labor Law: Legal Guardrails and Looming Minefields,” is hosted by Matt Greer, a longtime labor relations neutral and member of the ABA Labor and Employment Law Section. Joining me as a fellow guest was Nina Pirrotti, a partner with Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C. here in Connecticut and a highly experienced employee-side attorney. Regular readers of this blog will remember that Nina has appeared here many times before — and as always, she brought a sharp and thoughtful perspective to the discussion.

During the episode, Nina and I explored how employers and job seekers are already using AI — and what organizations need to be thinking about as these tools become more embedded in the workplace. We covered a lot of ground, including:

• AI in hiring and recruiting — from resume screening and drafting job descriptions to performance reviews and even sending rejection letters. The question we kept coming back to: when does efficiency cross the line into replacing human judgment?
• The AI arms race between employers and job seekers — as Nina put it, “It truly is an AI arms race.” Job seekers are using AI to generate resumes and cover letters tailored to match job descriptions, sometimes even burying coding inside applications designed to convince AI screeners to select them (something that has been termed a “prompt injection attack”). And employers, overwhelmed by the resulting flood of applications, are turning to AI to screen them. It’s a cycle that is only accelerating.
• Discrimination and liability risks — AI tools have the potential to discriminate against people who may be qualified but have a disability, are neurodivergent, or simply don’t meet the “norms” a program has been trained to recognize. The legal exposure here is real, and the potential for class action litigation is something every employer should have on its radar.
• The growing patchwork of state laws — as I noted during the conversation, even if you decided that federal law doesn’t require you to worry as much, you still need to worry about various state laws. And with remote employees working in multiple states, all bets are off. Connecticut’s own AI Responsibility and Transparency Act is just one example of the state-level regulatory landscape that employers need to navigate.

We also discussed key legal frameworks that remain foundational that are shaping how courts and regulators approach AI-driven employment decisions.

You can listen to the full episode on the ABA’s website here. Whether you’re commuting, working out, or just looking for something more substantive than your usual playlist, it’s a conversation worth your time.

My thanks to Matt Greer for hosting and for facilitating such a balanced and engaging discussion, and to Nina Pirrotti for being a terrific conversation partner. One of the things I’ve always appreciated about the ABA’s podcast is its commitment to bringing together voices from different sides of the table — management and employee perspectives — and this episode was no exception.

I have often said that getting summary judgment in an employment discrimination case in Connecticut state court is hard.

State judges are typically reluctant to grant such motions, and the conventional wisdom among practitioners is that it takes extraordinary facts to get there.

Which is what makes a recent decision worth noting. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety, dismissing claims for race discrimination, disability discrimination, workers’ compensation retaliation, and violations of the Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA).

The facts of the case are pretty straightforward: a former police officer brought a four-count complaint alleging that the town, its police chief, and another official discriminated against him on the basis of race, disability, and his medical marijuana patient status, and retaliated against him for filing a workers’ compensation claim.

On the race discrimination claim, the court said that the only evidence of racial animus was two comments made by unnamed employees in 2017. The plaintiff was not terminated until March 2020, more than two and a half years later. The court found this gap in time to be fatal to the claims. Indeed, at oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the two comments were the only evidence of racial discrimination.

On the disability discrimination claim, the court found that the plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of his job as a patrol officer. His own doctor stated that he was unable to return to full duty because he could not lift or move 200 pounds, a requirement listed in the job description. The plaintiff had been on medical leave for more than a year. The court also dismissed the failure-to-hire claims for two administrative positions, finding no evidence that the individuals who screened applications were aware of the plaintiff’s disability.

On the workers’ compensation retaliation claim, the court applied the temporal proximity standard from another case which held that three months or more between the protected activity and the adverse action is insufficient, standing alone, to create an inference of causation. The plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim was filed in 2014. His termination occurred in 2020. That six-year gap was just not enough to establish the claim.

PUMA claims are rarely seen in court. But even here, the court found no evidence that the plaintiff was terminated “solely” because of his status as a qualifying patient, which is the standard the statute requires.

I have written before about the difficulty of winning summary judgment in employment cases in Connecticut state court. Judges are generally inclined to let a jury sort things out, and the conventional wisdom is that it’s for two reasons: credibility determinations and inferences from circumstantial evidence are typically jury questions. But this case shows that summary judgment can be won when the plaintiff’s evidence simply does not connect to the adverse employment action.

For employers, cases like this have a few built in lessons.

First, document the timeline. The temporal gap between the alleged discriminatory comments and the termination was the dispositive fact on the race claim. When adverse employment actions are separated by years from any evidence of bias, that gap provides strong support for summary judgment. Employers who can demonstrate a clean record between the alleged discriminatory conduct and the employment decision are in a much stronger position.

Second, job descriptions are your friends; use them and update them. The disability claim failed because the employer had a written job description with specific physical requirements and a doctor’s note confirming the plaintiff could not meet them. That is exactly how it should work. Keep job descriptions current, ensure they accurately reflect essential functions, and use them when making fitness-for-duty determinations.

And lastly, even with the victory, no doubt the employer spent a considerable sum defending against the claims. While the employer here can claim a victory, it most certainly came at a price. Knowing that the cost of such cases is a cost of doing business is not anything to write home about, but it’s something that should just be taken into account.

You can read the case of de la Cruz v. Groton here.

I’ve been writing this blog long enough that, let’s just say, that retirement is closer than it was when I started. Heck, I’ve even had friends retire early recently.

But here’s a question that I sometimes hear: is an employer’s reference to retirement enough to satisfy a claim of age discrimination?

Not always but maybe when it is combined with other pieces of evidence, it can at least get an employee’s claim to a jury trial. At least according to a recent federal court decision in Connecticut.

In Daniels v. LMV Healthcare, Inc., a District of Connecticut court denied summary judgment on an age discrimination claim after the hiring manager made references to the plaintiff’s retirement status during and after the selection process. The employer won on the retaliation claims, but the discrimination case will go to a jury.

In that case, a laboratory technician with 41 years of experience and a preferred license, applied for an internal 24-hour per week position. She was competing with a recent graduate who held a per diem role. Both met the minimum qualifications.

During the interview, the hiring manager allegedly told the employee that she “didn’t need the job.” The recent graduate was hired. The stated rationale was operational: hiring him filled his per diem slot and avoided a scheduling gap.

What followed seemed to lead the court to send the case to a jury trial. In a meeting thereafter, when the employee noted the younger candidate might leave for a full-time job, the manager allegedly responded: “Well, you could do the same. You could retire.” In a later meeting, the manager allegedly referenced the employee being “semi-retired” and working less so she could retire. When HR interjected to clarify that age was not part of the rationale, the manager was hearing on a recording: “because she’s in that state, that she’s semi-retired, maybe she’ll decide tomorrow that she’s gonna retire.”

(It’s here that I have to note that part of the employee’s evidence was a recording of a conversation; it’s something I’ve discussed before. With technology, employers should assume that every conversation is being recorded.)

The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude the operational justification was developed after the hiring decision was already made. The manager communicated that Daniels was not going to get the job before she articulated any scheduling rationale. The court noted that retirement status can serve as a proxy for age when an employer targets employees based on assumptions tied to their proximity to retirement. The repeated retirement references — no matter how seemingly innocuous they were — permitted the inference at least for purposes of sending the case to a jury.

There’s no doubt a desire to talk about the obvious — retirement is part of the workplace. But if there’s going to be a discussion it should be clear that it’s being initiated by the employee (preferably in writing). And a discussion of retirement likely isn’t appropriate when discussing a hiring decision.

Did the employer here really do anything wrong? A jury will ultimately decide that question. It’s hard to fault the employer here but discussions of retirement may have been a reason why it’s getting sent there.

Connecticut’s 2026 legislative session produced one of the most ambitious workforce packages the state has seen in recent years. Several new laws take effect on October 1, 2026, and employers need to be preparing now.

In the latest episode of From Lawyer to Employer, I sat down with my colleague Sarah Niemiroski to walk through the most significant changes. Take a listen wherever you get your podcasts but for those who want a primer, here are the highlights.

Wage Transparency Gets an Overhaul

Starting October 1, employers must include the salary range in the job posting itself, not just when an applicant requests it. The range must be a legitimate reflection of expected compensation, and a general description of benefits must accompany it. The law covers Connecticut roles and out-of-state roles where the employee reports to a Connecticut supervisor or work site, including remote positions.

The law also expands anti-retaliation protections and extends the statute of limitations from one year to two years.

Update your job posting templates and train recruiters accordingly. Every posting on Indeed, LinkedIn, or your careers page will need a salary range and benefits summary.

Training Repayment Agreements Banned for All Employers

Connecticut already prohibited training repayment agreements (TRAPs) for employers with 26 or more employees. The new law removes the size threshold entirely. For agreements executed after October 1, 2026, no employer may require employees to repay training costs as a condition of leaving. Audit your onboarding documents and training agreements now.

Lactation Accommodation Is Now Mandatory

The existing lactation accommodation law moves from “may” to “shall.” Employers must provide a private lactation space (not a bathroom) with an electrical outlet, a surface for a breast pump, and access to running water or cold storage. Anti-retaliation protections apply, and the law covers any employer with one or more employees. Identify your lactation space now and confirm it meets the requirements.

ADA Notice Obligations Expand

Employers will now have a ten-day clock that comes into play when an employee raises a need for accommodation. These requests do not always arrive in formal language; an informal comment about needing help can trigger the obligation. Train supervisors and HR staff to recognize and escalate these conversations.

The AI Responsibility and Transparency Act

The CART Act regulates automated employment-related decision technology and hits hiring directly. It sets pre-decision notice requirements, clarifies that using AI tools is not a defense to a discrimination claim, creates whistleblower protections for AI developers, and requires disclosure on WARN Act notices if AI is used to identify who will be laid off.

Employers with 100 or more employees are subject to the core provisions. You will need bias testing results from your AI vendors, internal audits aligned to Connecticut’s “substantial factor” standard, and assurance that automated tools in hiring, promotion, and discharge are not engaging in discriminatory vetting. The onus is on the employer.

Key dates are staggered: some provisions take effect October 1, 2026, others January 1, 2027, and still others October 1, 2027. Calendar them.

Construction Industry Compliance

General contractors now face joint liability for wage violations by subcontractors. Revisit subcontractor agreements, tighten payroll due diligence, and update indemnification clauses. There is also a new daily record-keeping requirement on public works projects, with failure to file constituting a Class C misdemeanor.

Closing Notes

Federal laws remain in effect alongside these changes; Connecticut’s new laws layer on top and in most cases provide broader protections. There is a lot for employers to do. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And stay tuned for new episodes of the podcast returning in just a few weeks with a new host for this season. And you just might know her from this podcast.

Confession time: I sometimes go down a Reddit rabbit hole and the “Is This AI?” forum might be one of them.
So, a recent post tells a story that should make every employer paying expense reimbursements sit up. An employee submitted a receipt for a package release payment. The tracking number checked out. But something about the receipt looked off.

The poster couldn’t quite identify the problem, so they asked the internet. The commenters spotted it immediately: the fonts were too clean, the formatting too uniform, the wear and tear too perfectly imperfect. The consensus was that the receipt was AI-generated. The poster’s takeaway? “Definitely sounds like I need to get HR involved in this.”

Welcome to the new frontier of expense fraud.

The Scale of the Problem

This is no longer a hypothetical concern. A June 2026 survey by Emburse of 2,000 workers in the U.S. and U.K. found that 40 percent of U.S. employees admitted to using AI to generate a fake receipt for a business expense. Nineteen percent said they fabricated a purchase entirely. Fifteen percent used AI to inflate the value of a real purchase. And 36 percent of those who created fake receipts did so using AI tools paid for by their employer.

Those are crazy stats even if the survey’s basis is a bit sketchy.

The tools that make this possible are free, widely available, and require no technical skill. A text prompt describing a restaurant in a particular city, a date, and a dollar amount can produce a receipt in about 30 seconds that replicates the vendor’s logo, formatting, paper texture, and even the blur of a phone camera. Some AI models even simulate creases and thermal paper fading.

Why Detection Is Hard

The old tells of expense fraud are disappearing. Altered amounts, mismatched fonts, and blurry photocopies are artifacts of a less sophisticated era. AI-generated receipts do not have those flaws. They are designed from the ground up to look authentic, which means a human reviewer may not catch them, especially at volume.

There are some tells, at least for now. AI-generated receipts sometimes lack valid transaction IDs or tax identification numbers. They may include details that do not match known vendor locations or business hours. The wear patterns can look too uniform. But these artifacts are becoming less common as the underlying models improve.

What Employers Should Do Now

This is a policy and process problem, not just a technology problem. Employers should consider several concrete steps.

Update your expense reimbursement policy to specifically address AI-generated or digitally fabricated receipts. Make clear that submitting a fabricated receipt, regardless of the method used to create it, is a terminable offense. If your policy references “altered” or “falsified” receipts, consider adding language that covers synthetically generated documents.

Strengthen your audit procedures. Random audits remain useful; receipts that cannot be independently verified through a transaction record deserve closer scrutiny.

Consider shifting to corporate cards where feasible. When an employee uses a company-issued card, the transaction data is generated independently by the payment processor.

And train your managers and finance staff to recognize the signs of AI-generated documents. Receipts that look “too perfect,” lack normal printing imperfections, or contain inconsistencies in vendor details like store numbers or addresses should be flagged.

The Bottom Line

AI has made many things easier. Unfortunately, fabricating expense receipts is one of them. Employers who have not revisited their expense policies in light of these tools should do so now. The technology is only going to get better, and the old controls are not keeping pace.