Royal

Connecticut Pay Equity Law

June 21, 2021

Connecticut passed a new law regarding pay equity, which goes into effect October 1, 2021. The law requires employers to disclose the wage range for vacant positions to applicants and existing employees. For applicants, an employer must provide a wage range to the applicant when the applicant receives an offer or at the applicant’s request. For existing employees, an employer must provide a wage range for the employee’s position when the employee is hired, when the employee changes positions, or at the employee’s request.


The Act defines “wage range” as the range of wages an employer anticipates relying on when setting wages for a position. Employers can determine the wage range for a position by reference to pay scales, current or previous actual wages, or budgets.


In addition, the Act expands the concept gender wage discrimination. The new law prohibits employers from paying someone of the opposite sex less for comparable (rather than equal) work. To determine whether work is comparable, an employer considers several factors including a “composite of skill, effort, and responsibility.” However, the Act explicitly states that employers can take into account geographic location, credentials, skills, education, and training when making compensation decisions.


In light of this new legislation, employers should review their employee compensation and wage disclosure practices.


For any questions about compliance, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm. 

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: