Photo of Peter J. Murphy

Peter J. Murphy

Subscribe to Peter J. Murphy's Posts

Peter represents public and private sector employers in a broad array of cases, with a focus on cases involving claims of discrimination, wrongful termination, first amendment retaliation, and other labor and employment disputes. In addition, Peter advises employers on issues such as employee discipline, disability accommodations, and internal investigations, and provides training and seminar presentations on those issues.

Follow:Read more about Peter J. MurphyPeter's Linkedin Profile

Smiling woman having job interviews and receiving portfolios

Previously, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-222c merely required school districts to make a documented good faith effort to contact previous employers of applicants to obtain “information and recommendations which may be relevant to the [applicant’s] fitness for employment” before hiring that applicant.  As of July 1, 2016, however, local and regional boards of education, charter school governing councils, and interdistrict magnet school operators (collectively, “school districts”) are required to implement additional, more extensive background check procedures when hiring any applicant for employment in a position that would involve direct contact with students, including contracted positions.  These new requirements are imposed by Section 2 of Public Act 16-67, which amended Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-222c.

As described more fully below, the new background check procedures imposed by Public Act 16-67 require schools districts to request specific information from an applicant, from the applicant’s prior employers, and from the State Department of Education before hiring an applicant for a permanent position involving direct student contact.  The new procedures further require that current and former employers respond to requests for information pursuant to the statute within a specified timeframe.  Moreover, Public Act 16-67 permits school districts to hire an applicant for a position involving direct student contact on a temporary basis only, pending successful completion of the new background check process and review of the applicant’s employment history.Continue Reading Effective July 1, 2016, School Districts Subject to New Requirements for Employee Background Checks

Federal courts offer guidance on conducting reviews
Connecticut Law Tribune
July 27, 2015
Download: Article PDF

Knowledgable Healthcare

When an employee advises an employer about physical or mental health issues, the employer must carefully respond and be aware of the employee’s rights and the risks associated with asking the wrong question or taking the wrong action. Employees generally control the initial flow of information to the employer by, for example, providing return-to-work notes requesting accommodations in the workplace, or providing medical records and reports from possible expert witnesses in litigation.

Employers have the means for assessing this information and responding accordingly. Employers do not need to accept this information at face value, however, as they also have significant rights to independent reviews of an employee’s medical condition both during employment and during litigation. Recent cases from the federal courts provide guidance as to how and when to conduct such an independent medical review.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which allows an employer to order an independent evaluation of an employee when it “is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The ADA’s regulations clarify that an employer may make a medical inquiry or examination “when there is a need to determine whether an employee is still able to perform the essential functions of his or her job.”
Continue Reading Using Independent Medical Exams for Employees

Agencies, courts signal a new focus on civil rights violations

Connecticut Law Tribune
January 26, 2015
Download: Article PDF

Connecticut has some of the finest educational institutions in the country, including award-winning public school systems, internationally famous private schools and elite public and private colleges and universities. Connecticut also has great day care centers, summer camps, trade schools and other such institutions. Despite providing quality education and training, recent events suggest that these institutions will be under increased federal and state scrutiny regarding their compliance with civil rights laws.

When acting as employers, educational institutions are subject to laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. They also are places of public accommodation, which makes them subject to requirements to make their facilities and programs open and accessible to individuals with disabilities. These requirements place significant compliance burdens on educational institutions, and federal and state agencies have announced that they will be increasing their monitoring efforts in 2015.

I recently attended a dinner where a representative of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities spoke about the agency’s focus for the year ahead. Among other things, the representative noted that the agency was looking for more cases involving educational institutions, from both employment and student perspectives. These comments are supported by a review of the CHRO’s new blog, which recently highlighted the CHRO’s sponsorship of an October 2014 panel discussion at the Legislative Office Building regarding campus sexual assault. A second blog post responded to discriminatory events at two high schools in Connecticut, and quoted Cheryl Sharp, deputy director of the CHRO, as saying: “We are deeply troubled by the reports of discriminatory conduct at school functions.”
Continue Reading Educational Institutions Face Heightened Scrutiny

In a January 12, 2010 post, we summarized the conflicting decisions coming from courts in cases involving student discipline based on off-campus Internet postings. That …

Continue Reading Third Circuit Issues Reaches Conflicting Results in Two Cases Addressing Student Discipline for Off-campus Internet Postings