Connecticut's Paid Sick Leave Act (Part 2): The Magic Number Problem or Why 2013 Will Be Worse Than 2012

As I mentioned yesterday, I’m taking a good look this week at Connecticut’s new Paid Sick Leave Law, which goes into effect January 1, 2012.  Yesterday, I commented on afundamental problem with the law (and its recently issued guidance) withrespect to figuring out if an amusement or tourism employee even qualifies forpaid sick leave in the first place.  Today, though, I want to look at an issue that will uniquely and significantly impact seasonal employers in our industry:  the Magic Number 680.

By now, most employers are probably aware of the significance of this figure.  In case you are not, however, it is one of two threshold "hours-worked" requirements that an employee has to meet before he or she is entitled to use paid sick leave.  It sounds simple and straightforward enough:  an employee is not entitled to use any paid sick leave until 1) he or she has worked a minimum of 680 hours for an employer and 2) the employee has worked an average of ten hours per week in the preceding calendar quarter.  We’ll get to that second one in a few minutes, but for now, I want to concentrate on the first - specifically a facet of the 680-hour rule that is easy to miss and is going to impact seasonal employers and their bottom line in a big way starting in the summer of 2013.  The Connecticut Department of Labor sums it up nicely:  the “680 hour requirement is a one time requirement.  Once service workers meet the 680 hours, they never have to meet it again for the same employer.”  This has potentially huge implications for seasonal operations, not in 2012, but in 2013.

Connecticut's Paid Sick Leave Law: Why Amusement & Tourism Employers Can't Figure Out Who Is Covered.

The Connecticut Department of Labor recently issued its official guidance and interpretation of the newly enacted Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Act, which officially takes effect January 1, 2012.  I've previously written about this act, and being from Connecticut, I have been eagerly awaiting this official interpretation.  On the upside, the DoL's interpretation did help to clarify certain issues that were woefully unclear in the statutory text.  On the downside, the interpretation confirms for me that this new act is going to be a nightmare for Connecticut seasonal employers in the amusement and tourism industry.  The new law imposes several new obligations on all employers, but, with respect to seasonal employers, particularly those in the amusement and tourism industry, this new law is going to pose some unique legal issues that could make compliance daunting.

Connecticut is the only state in the country to have such a law right now, and thus the legislature, the Department of Labor, and (eventually) the courts will be working from a blank slate when it comes to enforcement and interpretation.  Moreover, this legislation is being watched by sister states as a potential model for similar legislation elsewhere.  Given the absence of any history with this kind of legislation, it is virtually certain that Connecticut employers and regulators will face a number uncertainties over the next year as everyone works to "get the bugs out" of this new law.   This week, I'll be doing a few pieces on some of the more troubling and controversial aspects of this new legislation, particularly with respect to the seasonal amusement and tourism industry in our state.  

We start with a really basic question, Who Gets Paid Sick Leave Under The Act?

UPDATE: Wallace v. SeaWorld's Roadmap For Reversing Nalwa v. Cedar Fair

Last week I attended IAAPA Expo 2011 in beautiful (and much warmer than Connecticut) Orlando, Florida.  I think all who attended can agree that it was a great time and a fantastic networking opportunity.  To all of you who I met there, I hope to see you soon.  To all of you who I didn't, I hope to meet you soon.

While at IAAPA, I had the opportunity to speak with several of my colleagues, both in and out of any one of the kazillion educational sessions IAAPA offers, and specifically to speak with some of them about last summer's decision from the California federal court in Wallace v. Busch Entertainment.  I've previously written about this case to express my belief that it could contain a subtle signal that at least one federal judge in California does not believe that the Nalwa decision is long for this world.  (I've also written on the Nalwa decision previously - you can find that here).  I continue to believe that the absence of any mention of the Nalwa ruling in Wallace may speak volumes about its perceived persuasiveness.  However a colleague of mine, who practices in California, was not as convinced that there was any message or implication in the Wallace ruling.  According to my colleague, the absence of Nalwa in the Wallace decision is not attributable to the federal court's potential belief that Nalwa is a poor decision, but is simply a product of a California appellate rule that prohibits any court from citing the Nalwa decision once the California Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision.  Well - not being versed in California appellate rules (remember folks, I practice in Connecticut and the two states are PRETTY different), this stopped me in my tracks ... momentarily.  After all, if the Wallace court didn't cite to Nalwa because it wasn't allowed to - where does that leave my entire premise.  Well, I'm happy to report that my premise is safe and sound, and in fact, even assuming my colleague is correct about this rule, even stronger than it was before I knew about the rule.  Keep reading after the jump if you want to know why. 

IAAPA 2011: Five Sessions That Could (Unintentionally) Help You Avoid Legal Trouble (and why)

Well, its Day Two of my special buildup to IAAPA 2011.  Yesterday, I put together my five recommendations for legally-themed educational sessions at this year's expo.  Today, I've assembled a list of five non-legal seminars that could, as a fortunate side effect, help you avoid legal trouble down the line.  These seminars are not, to the best of my knowledge, taught by lawyers or meant to delve deeply into legal issues.  They all seem designed with an operational or business purpose in mind - to help you, the owner or operator, better manage your operation and maximize profits.  Nonetheless (and based solely on the course descriptions and my personal opinions), there is a good chance that something you learn in these classes will help keep you out of court someday.  And as much as I love going to court as an attorney, trust me when I tell you that it's a lot less fun if you are a litigant.  So, here they are ... the Five Sessions That Could (Unintentionally) Help You Avoid Legal Trouble (and why):

IAAPA 2011: Five Legally Themed Sessions You Should Attend (and why)

Like many of you, I hope, I will be making the trek to sunny Orlando soon for next week's IAAPA Attractions Expo 2011.  In anticipation of the big event, I thought it would be fun to highlight some of the best that IAAPA has to offer (or that I think IAAPA has to offer) at this year's event.  So, for the next few days, I will be offering a different "Top 5" list to help you get the most out of your visit.***  I will also be in attendance at most, if not all, of my "Top 5" selections for the week, so if you see me (I'll be the one in the suit looking exceptionally lawyerly), please don't hesitate to stop and say hello!

***Please note that, except if I note otherwise, I have no particular connection to any of these sessions and have not been asked by IAAPA or any of the speakers to promote any of them in particular.  These are just my own opinions.  That said, if anyone out there wants to buy me a drink in Orlando for recommending a particular session, I would be glad to take you up on it. ***

So, without any further ado, I give you the 5 Legally Themed Sessions You Should Attend (and why):

The Strong Arm Of The Law: How Judges Use Appeal-Proof Decisions To Push Settlements

One of the most frustrating things about litigation for a client to understand is that sometimes, especially early in a case, you can be 100% right on the law and 100% right on the facts, and still lose – and there’s really nothing you can do about it.  Why?  Because judges, generally, are quite practical and they know precisely how and when to flex some judicial muscle to pressure you into a settlement that will bring the entire case to a close quickly and finally.  No difficult legal questions to answer.  No long trials taking up the Court’s time and costing a lot of money for the client.  No appeal and (more importantly from the judge’s perspective) risk of reversal on appeal.  The whole case just goes away.  And if all it takes to make all this a reality is a decision on a preliminary issue that might not be in line with controlling law and that will never be appealed, from the judge’s perspective, its worth it every time. 

I recently saw a perfect example of this in a recent case involving Cedar Fair’s soon-to-be-former property, California’s Great America in Santa Clara, California. The case is called Griffin v. Cedar Fair L.P., and it involves allegations that the park is in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  The decision mostly concerns a rather ordinary pleading issue that normally would not warrant much attention, however, the end of the case contains a prime example of a judge ignoring the facts and the law in an attempt to induce a quick settlement by, effectively, forcing Cedar Fair to air its dirty laundry in front of all its guests. 

After Zanesville: A Plea For Legislative Reason And Deliberation Instead Of Reflexive Reaction

A result of exotic animal ownership or an irresponsible owner?

Now that the threat caused by yesterday's mass release of dozens of wild exotic animals onto the streets of Zanesville, Ohio has ended, unfortunately bringing with it the tragic (but necessary) shooting deaths of most of the animals in the name of public safety, we are already hearing the reflexive cries for legislation banning exotic animal ownership outright in Ohio as well as in other states where regulation of exotic animals is lax or, in some cases, nonexistent.  Heck, even Ted Nugent has waded into the issue.  While I don't think that regulation of exotic animals is a bad thing in concept, I fear that, as is almost always the case when bad things happen, the loudest voices and most unreasonable minds will charge fearlessly toward the most restrictive regulation possible in an effort to placate the masses and achieve political favor as "the person who did something" for his constituents.  Too often, though, this kind of reactionary legislation, while looking good in the moment, reveals itself over time to be ill-suited to solving the real problem at issue.  This is a plea, therefore, to state legislators, in Ohio and elsewhere, already working on an immediate legislative remedy, to stop drafting the law now, take the time to examine this incident and others like it, understand the underlying issues, listen to the experts, and then, AND ONLY THEN, draft meaningful regulation that addresses the problem effectively. 

A Picture Ruins A Thousand Warnings: How Marketing Makes Liability More Likely

I saw a particularly troublesome example of the collision between marketing and operations yesterday when I read a newspaper article on the Internet concerning ride safety at a large amusement park.  In the interest of not drawing any negative attention, I’m going to use an alias for the park, Happy Funland, and I’m not going to link to the article, so you’ll have to trust me on what it said.  At the top of the article was a photograph of a roller coaster descending down a drop.  Sitting in the car were two people, both clearly wearing name tags of the facility, both obviously enjoying their ride screaming and smiling, and both with their hands flailing about up in the air.  Under the picture was a caption reading, to paraphrase, “Employees test riding the WonderCoaster at Happy Funland Amusement Park.”  As if this wasn’t bad enough was this paraphrased quote from a park official:

“Our staff is extremely knowledgeable in what is required to run our rides incredibly safely and safety is our top priority when it comes to operating any ride in the park.”

Really?  ‘Cause the picture of the employees violating the safety rules sure doesn’t indicate to me that at least these employees are “extremely knowledgeable in what is required to run” this ride “incredibly safely.”  Worse, if someone ever gets injured on this ride because they weren’t holding on, this is exactly the kind of thing that plaintiff’s lawyers will jump on and that makes my job defending the facility a whole lot tougher.  This one highly publicized picture or other similar shots in marketing brochures or television commercials can (and will) come back to bite you (in that place that’s supposed to remain in the seat the whole ride) in the event of a lawsuit.  “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” is simply not a ticket to guarding against legal liability or building a solid liability defense.

Contrary To Media Reports, Video Of Dawn Brancheau's Death Is Not About To Go Public (UPDATED 9/20/11)

Yesterday (9/15/11), Judge Gregory Presnell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando denied a preliminary injunction sought by the family of the deceased SeaWorld trainer, Dawn Bancheau, to prevent video showing the events of Ms. Brancheau's death from being shown publicly at an OSHA hearing looking into potential OSHA violations by SeaWorld scheduled for September 19.  Having spent some time today looking at the media reports and the ruling itself, I am disturbed (although not overly surprised) at the extent to which the media has missed the point of Judge Presnell's ruling and has characterized at something it is not.

An Associated Press report, picked up by many news outlets around the country, leads with this sentence:

"A federal judge says there is no legal reason images of a SeaWorld trainer's death should be kept from the public."

To many (maybe most) readers, this suggests that Judge Presnell ruled that the video depicting Ms. Brancheau's death should be public or that he believes that the public interest would be best served if the video were to be released.  But that's not what he said in the ruling, and, in fact, there's every reason to believe that despite Judge Presnell's ruling, the graphic video of Ms. Brancheau's death will never be made publicly available at all.

So You Think A Deaf Person Can't Be A Lifeguard? You Might Be Right...Or Wrong.

We spend a lot of time in this industry talking about the ADA when it comes to guests.   The recent death of Sgt. James Hackemer atDarien Lake has kept this issue at the forefront for most of the summer.  But one issue we spend a lot less time talking about is the ADA as applied to our employees.  Lucky for us, a federal court judge in Michigan has given us the opportunity to think about it now.  In Keith v. Oakland County, issued September 1, the Court ruled against a deaf lifeguard in an ADA employment discrimination case finding that his disability precluded him from performing the “essential” duties of a wave-pool lifeguard and that no reasonable accommodation was possible.