Buried in the nearly 900 page document which is the biennial budget legislation are two sentences that impose a new requirement on boards of education.  Specifically, Section 157 of Public Act 17-2 from the June Special Session provides:

Sec. 157.  (NEW)(Effective from passage) Any local board of education shall file forthwith a signed copy of any contract for administrative personnel with the town clerk, which town clerk shall post a copy of any such contract on the town’s Internet web site.  Any regional board of education shall file a copy of any such contract with the town clerk in each member town, which town clerk shall post a copy of any such contract on the town’s Internet web site. Continue Reading Budget Legislation Requires That “Administrative” Contracts Be Provided To And Posted By The Town Clerk

Typically this time of year school district administrators ponder whether to “non-renew” non-tenured teachers in response to budget uncertainty, as opposed to waiting for the fiscal picture to become clear and possibly laying off teachers at a later time.  Given the state budget crisis, and unprecedented major cuts in funding on the table, the uncertainty is worse this year than ever before.  This has caused even superintendents and other administrators who previously were not inclined to non-renew teachers for economic reasons, to give serious consideration to doing so.

So what are the advantages and disadvantages of non-renewal relative to laying off non-tenured teachers?  If a teacher is non-renewed for economic reasons pursuant to C.G.S. Section 10-151(c), he/she has no recall rights and no right to a hearing before the Board of Education.  Moreover, if after the budget is settled the district decides to continue the employment of some but not all non-renewed teachers, it can pick and choose to whom it decides to offer reinstatement, thereby, enabling it to select the best and brightest. Continue Reading The May 1st Dilemma: Non-Renewal vs. Layoff

Over the past few weeks, there have been several cyberattacks on Connecticut municipalities and boards of education.  On the municipal side, internet thieves have intercepted wire transfer instructions in two Connecticut municipalities resulting in the theft of significant sums.

Most recently, an outside party accessed a Superintendent’s email and requested W-2 information for the school district’s employees.  While local police, IRS and FBI are investigating the matter, it is believed this information was stolen with the intent of filing false tax returns for the affected employees. Continue Reading Internet Thieves Are Targeting Municipalities and Boards of Education

Effective July 1, 2016, local or regional boards of education, governing councils of state or local charter schools and inter-district magnet school operators (collectively “BOEs”), are going to have to follow new requirements for hiring education personnel.  The state legislature recently enacted Public Act 16-67 (“the Act”) in response to a new provision in the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”). The new ESSA provision, entitled “Prohibition on Aiding and Abetting Sexual Abuse”, is aimed at preventing school employees who have engaged in sexual misconduct with students from being passed from one school district to another, by requiring states, state educational agencies and local school districts that receive federal funding to establish laws, regulations and policies that prevent employment of school personnel where there is reason to believe that person has previously engaged in sexual misconduct with a student or minor.

Who is impacted by the new requirements?

The Act has broad application and seeks to identify potential predators earlier in the hiring process. Significantly, the Act applies to applicants, rather than those offered employment, and prohibits the employment of any applicant who fails to meet the new requirements.  The Act makes no distinction between certified and non-certified personnel, but instead applies to all “applicants for a position, including any position which is contracted for, if such applicant would have direct student contact”.  “Direct student contact” is not defined by the Act, but positions with direct student contact would include teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, behavioral therapists, coaches, food service workers, custodians, clerical/administrative support staff in the schools, and school nurses.  There are specific provisions for temporary positions (less than 90 days), substitute teachers and contractors, but even applicants for these positions must comply with the requirements for criminal and employment background checks.  Student employees remain excluded from the requirement of a criminal background check under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-221d.

What is required under the Act?

The Act imposes significant changes on existing laws regarding hiring of education personnel, specifically impacting Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 10-221d (criminal and child abuse registry background checks), 10-222c (hiring policy) and 10-145 (substitute teachers). Continue Reading Public Act 16-67: New Hiring Requirements for Board of Education Personnel

The U.S. Department of Labor just issued its final rule, requiring minimum wage and overtime for some employees who are currently “exempt” from these requirements. Employers need to plan ahead for implementation, as the rule change could lead to seismic shifts in some payrolls.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires that employees receive minimum wage and overtime (calculated at one-and-a-half times the regular rate of pay for hours over 40) unless they are “exempt” from one or both requirements. The most popular exemptions are the so-called “white collar exemptions,” which apply to executive, administrative, and professional employees who meet rigorous criteria based on their duties. To be exempt, these employees must be paid a salary of at least $455 per week and the employer must pay on a salary basis (meaning no docking for partial workweeks, subject to limited exceptions). Doctors, lawyers, and teachers can be exempt under the FLSA even if they are not paid on a salary basis and there is no minimum salary for these employees. (The computer professional exemption has special rules under which employees can be paid hourly, but in any event, there is no computer professional exemption under Connecticut state law.)

The rule change more than doubles the salary threshold from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $913 per week ($47,476 annually). Further, these thresholds will be subject to inflationary increases every three years. Nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) may account for up to 10 percent of the minimum salary level. By contrast, discretionary bonuses do not count toward the minimum salary level.  The duties tests are not changing under this rule. The threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption increases from $100,000 to $134,004, but Connecticut does not recognize this exemption, so employers should not rely upon it for employees in the state.

Raising the salary threshold is expected to transform millions of exempt employees into non-exempt employees overnight. Some employers will be able to weather this change better than others. Virtually every employer in the country is subject to the FLSA, even if there is only one employee. This includes non-profits and public sector employers. In Connecticut, where the cost of living is high, the effect of this change may be lower than elsewhere in the country. It is more likely here than elsewhere that employees who meet the duties tests are already earning at least $913 per week. However, non-profit, low-profit, and government employers may find that many of their employees are subject to this rule change and these employers may have more rigid budgets that cannot withstand the impact. Employers with an annual volume of sales or business of less than $500,000 may wish to consult an employment lawyer to see if they are one of the very few employers not subject to the FLSA.

To comply with the rule, employers need to either raise salaries of affected employees to ensure they meet the threshold or begin treating these employees as non-exempt. Raising salaries is straightforward, but remember that the rule is likely to require inflationary increases, so the amount will change going forward. If employers do not wish to raise salaries, the employees must be treated as non-exempt. This means that employers must keep records of their hours worked and they must be paid overtime for hours over 40. It is legally permissible to cap hours at 40 by prohibiting employees from working overtime and some employers may choose to hire multiple employees to do what was once one employee’s job. Collective bargaining agreements may limit employers’ options.

It cannot be overstated how important it is to ensure that employees are properly exempted if they are not going to be paid overtime. Consider the following scenario. A passionate, well educated executive director of a nonprofit organization earns a salary of $912 per week – just one dollar short of the new threshold. She labors with love, working 70 hours most weeks. A disgruntled employee complains to the Department of Labor that he is owed overtime and the agency examines the payroll practices of the entire organization. The Department of Labor finds that the executive director is not exempt. It is not that she is underpaid by fifty-two dollars. It is that she is not exempt at all. She is owed unpaid overtime of more than $20,000 (more if the salary was only intended to cover a certain number of hours) all because she was paid one dollar per week too little to qualify as exempt.  She would likely also be eligible for liquidated damages, doubling the underlying liability. (There are some arguments an employer could make to apply more favorable damages calculations, but these arguments have yet to be successful in the Second Circuit.) That is the legal significance of the salary threshold and why employers must be extremely careful. For that matter, when considering the duties tests as well, employers should recognize how a small mistake in classifying an employee or a group of employees could add up to huge liability.

Employers should take time now to review their payroll practices to ensure they are in compliance with state and federal laws now and in the future. For each employee believed to be exempt, ensure that he or she meets the duties tests for the applicable exemption, is paid on a salary if required by the exemption, and is paid a salary that is high enough to support the exemption. In considering the duties of a position, employers should be concerned not with titles or job descriptions, but with how the employee actually spends his or her time. It is a good idea to update job descriptions to match reality.

Ensure that all non-exempt employees’ hours are being tracked, including time spent offsite performing work, on call, or traveling, to the extent required by law. Ensure that break periods of fewer than 20 minutes are treated as working time.

Now is a good time to change payroll practices without raising alarm that perhaps things were not done properly before. Employers can connect changes with the new overtime rule to minimize suspicion, particularly in cases of misclassification. Internal review of payroll practices should be aided by a competent labor and employment attorney, as the rules can be excruciatingly detailed. Using non-attorney human resource consultants or payroll companies for this activity is not advised, as communications will not be privileged. Changes to payroll practices, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment should be communicated to employees well in advance, ideally at least 30 days.

Our team of labor and employment attorneys can assist employers in adjusting to the new white-collar exemption requirements and ensuring compliance with all applicable labor and employment laws.  Contact us to arrange a wage-and-hour self-audit for your organization.

While the concept is intuitive, a recent study has confirmed that teacher absenteeism has a direct and measurable impact on student learning.  In a report entitled “Roll Call:  The Importance of Teacher Attendance” the National Center on Teacher Quality found that teachers miss on average 11 out of 186 days of school; and one in six teachers has chronic absenteeism with 44% of teachers out more than 10 days per year.

Data maintained by the State of Connecticut Department of Education, though notoriously outdated, shows similar trends in Connecticut.  In addition, Connecticut law requires school districts to provide teachers with a minimum of 15 sick days annually — for a 10 month work year!  With statistics showing a national average of approximately six sick days per employee (only two of which are bona fide illness), that number seems excessive.

Adding to the problem is the trend in recent years to allow sick days to be used for family illness, as well as the teacher’s own illness.

That all stated, control of excess sick leave utilization remains by and large something which can be controlled by good management practices including:

  • Encourage regular attendance and point out the impact on learning to staff
  • Regularly reviewing reports of teacher absenteeism
  • Considering publishing such reports to put public pressure on teachers to curb any abuse
  • Counseling teachers who, in a given year are trending high and do not have a clear injury or illness to explain the anomaly, or who show a pattern of excessive absenteeism over multiple years
  • Apply progressive discipline to teachers who do not respond to counseling efforts


In what is one of, if not the first decision of its type in Connecticut, an independent hearing officer has ruled that the Groton Board of Education had grounds to terminate Paul Kadri its Superintendent of Schools.  

As in most districts, Kadri was under contract which provided for grounds for termination similar to those found in the Teacher Tenured Act, including “other due and sufficient cause.”  It also provided that the Board would conduct a hearing before termination.  Kadri, however, through his counsel raised concerns regarding alleged predetermination on the part of certain board members.  Out of an abundance of caution, the Board agreed to place the decision in the hands of an independent arbitrator, Mr. Timothy Bornstein, which decision the Parties agreed, would be final and binding.

In a decision issued March 4, Mr. Bornstein ruled that due to mistreatment of staff, including numerous physical and verbal assaults, the Groton Board of Education had just cause to terminate his employment. 


In a move that seemed to defy logic, the Connecticut Education Association (CEA) on behalf of its local affiliate the Milford Education Association, filed a complaint claiming that a popular software program, specifically designed to make easier the process of completing paperwork following a Planning and Placement Team meeting (PPT) for a special education student, in fact increased teachers’ workloads.  In the case filed with the State Labor Board, the CEA alleged that the software program took teachers nearly twice as long (one to two hours more per student) to compete an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) than it previously took to do it in long hand.  The workload of the teachers complaining involved in some cases as few as 6 students. 



 In what will no doubt be viewed as a landmark decision, an interest arbitration panel has issued an award which will allow the New Haven Public Schools to privatize 86 of the 186 positions in its custodial and maintenance union, and in the process save nearly $4 million dollars.

Faced with skyrocketing pension and health insurance cost which are expected to outpace the growth in revenues over the foreseeable future, the City of New Haven and its Board of Education were forced to look for ways to substantially cut operating costs.  Having already laid off nearly 300 employees over the last two fiscal years, the Board and the City began to look at other options.

Among the options considered was outsourcing services that could continue to be provided at a substantial savings.  An option that emerged was the outsourcing of school custodial and related services, which cost the Board $16 million per year.  As a result of an RFP, the Board found a national firm willing to perform the same services for just $8 million, which would mean a net savings to the budget of $8 million per year. 

Continue Reading Arbitration Panel Awards New Haven the Right to Privatize a Substantial Portion of School Custodians