Page 7 - CLT041221

NEWS APRIL 12, 2021 ¦ 7

Employment Lawyers Brace for Jurisdictional
Hurdles With Rise of Work From Home

By Robert Storace

Connecticut Appellate Court building, Hartford. Photo: Google

AConnecticut appellate ruling points to a $90,000 annually, sued for gender discrimination,
looming question for employment law amid claiming that two male counterparts with what she
the coronavirus pandemic: What new juris- said were similar jobs were making more money. She
dictional issues will arise from the global spike in then claimed she was fired in October 2016, about a
telecommuting during the last year? year after she complained about it.
The issue is at the center of a Connecticut Appellate The Appellate Court judges upheld a Superior
Court’s grant of summary judgment to a Shelton- Court ruling that said the work the male employees
based electronics manufacturer who faced allegations performed was “significantly different” than Luth’s.
of gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge. The Appellate Court also agreed with Superior
Employment lawyers took note of what wasn’t Court Judge Barry Stevens, who said the fact that
in the ruling: a discussion of geography and juris- the layoff was about a year after Luth complained
diction in litigation involving a worker who lived shows there was no linkage to her complaining and
outside the state where she worked. her firing. The company said it let Luth and others
go because it was having financial hardship.
But what caught the eye of three Connecticut em-
Choice of venue?
In the April 1 ruling, the three-member Appellate ployment attorneys—all of whom were not involved
Court panel ruled unanimously for summary judg- in the Luth litigation—was something that neither
ment for defendant OEM Controls Inc. the Appellate Court nor lower court mentioned.
Plaintiff Diane Luth, who had been promoted “What wasn’t said at all … is that this woman, from
to implementation manager in the company’s data 2011 until she was let go in 2016, worked almost
delivery department with a salary bump to about
¦ Continued on PAGE 8

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune