Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

For more than 35 years, Stephen W. Aronson has been defending employers in federal and state court and before administrative agencies in class actions, multiplaintiff, and single plaintiff employment law claims. Based on his extensive litigation experience, Stephen also counsels businesses, senior managers, and Human Resources professionals on all manner of employment law issues.

Employment Litigation + Administrative Advocacy

Stephen has extensive experience leading the defense of companies facing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) misclassification claims, including hybrid claims under federal and state law. He frequently wins summary judgment on discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower, free speech, and other employment claims. He is hired by employers and insurance carriers seeking experienced trial counsel to defend cases brought to trial.

Stephen also handles hearings on injunctions in noncompete cases for both former employers and new employers, including related claims such as misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and employee theft.

Health Law

While Stephen represents employers in many industry sectors, he often represents the health care industry. He regularly defends hospitals, health care systems, and physician groups from discrimination, wage and hour, whistleblower retaliation, and free speech claims as well as compliance actions. Stephen also works with senior management on implementing best practices, risk avoidance, investigations, and litigation oversight. In addition, he contributes to the firm's Health Law Diagnosis blog.

Counseling, Compliance, + Training

Drawing from his prior experience as in-house employment counsel, Stephen also counsels companies and human resources professionals on litigation avoidance techniques, investigations, policies, discipline and performance management, governmental and internal audits, employment contracts, contingent worker liabilities, severance and separation agreements, workplace safety, individual terminations and reductions-in-force, and noncompete, nondisparagement, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality agreements.

Stephen often presents seminars and training programs on employment law topics, including litigation strategies, personal liability, wage and hour claims, COBRA, ERISA, employment at will, wrongful discharge, employment contracts, handbooks, defamation, privacy rights, reductions-in-force, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and workplace violence. He has authored articles on employee free speech claims, the Dodd-Frank Act and whistleblower retaliation claims, damages under the FLSA, Title VII damages, contingent worker liabilities, wage and hour claims procedures, discrimination litigation, and other topics.

  • University of Connecticut School of Law (Juris Doctor)
    • Law Review
  • Tufts University (Bachelors, cum laude)
    • B.A, Economics

  • State of Connecticut
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
  • Mohegan Tribal Gaming Court

Robinson+Cole Wellbeing Award, 2025

Ranked in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business in the State of Connecticut in the area of Labor & Employment since 2023

Listed in Benchmark Labor & Employment as a Labor & Employment Star since 2018

Selected to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list in 2006, 2007, 2010, from 2013 to 2016, and for 2019, 2020, 2024 and 2025

Anti-Defamation League
Connecticut Civil Rights Committee

Connecticut Bar Association
Labor and Employment Law Section
Past author of Professional Discipline Digest

United States Law Firm Group
Member, Labor and Employment Committee

Society for Human Resource Management
Past member

American Inns of Court
Former Secretary

R+C Wellbeing Committee
Former Co-Chair

Yachad Greater Hartford Jewish Community High School
Past member of the Board of Trustees

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Connecticut
Board of Directors, and Finance Committee

Farmington Valley Visiting Nurse Association
Board of Directors

Griffin Hospital Development Fund, Inc.
Member, Golf Committee

Beth El Temple of West Hartford Inc.
Current member and Past President

Pat Griskus Triathlon
Volunteer - 2022

Ironman
Volunteer - Lake Placid (2012-2022), Maine (2021), and Western Massachusetts (2023)

United States Tennis Association
Member, Grievance Committee
Team Captain

Experience


General Employment Litigation: Discrimination, Retaliation + Other Claims

Represented global chemical company from claims by a former internal auditor alleging race, sex, and religious discrimination; retaliation for complaining about discrimination; and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy by false light. Successfully obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light invasion of privacy claims. Won summary judgment on all 12 remaining claims, and won request for reimbursement of discovery costs and an award of attorney's fees.

Read More

Wage + Hour Litigation: Six Construction Company Lawsuits

Defended national construction company from claims from former employees in six related lawsuits. The first lawsuit was an FLSA hybrid collective action filed by five former employees claiming failure to pay overtime pay on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of current and former employees. We successfully limited the plaintiffs from conducting nationwide discovery, saving significant expenses, and successfully dismissed all of the class action wage and hour claims. Although the Court allowed the plaintiffs to issue a class solicitation notice for misclassification claims, only one former employee opted into the collective action. We also successfully defended the company from five single-plaintiff lawsuits alleging discrimination and retaliation claims, breach of implied contract claims, equal pay claims, and wrongful termination claims. We filed motions to dismiss by which we dismissed two of the lawsuits in their entirety and limited the claims in the remaining three lawsuits. Having significantly reduced the scope of the plaintiffs' claims, we positioned the case for settlement, and after two mediations, we entered into a confidential global settlement of all claims.

Read More

$250 Million Global Development Facility Representation

Represented client in all aspects of due diligence, risk management, permitting, site remediation, the transaction, and development of a $250 million global development facility.



Publications


Legal Update: Minutes Matter: Connecticut Supreme Court Requires Pay for Post-Shift Security Screenings and Rejects De Minimis Doctrine for Wage Claims teaser
February 12, 2026

Legal Update: Minutes Matter: Connecticut Supreme Court Requires Pay for Post-Shift Security Screenings and Rejects De Minimis Doctrine for Wage Claims

Legal Update: General Counsel Memorandum Urges NLRB to Find Certain Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-or-Pay Provisions Unlawful teaser
October 29, 2024

Legal Update: General Counsel Memorandum Urges NLRB to Find Certain Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-or-Pay Provisions Unlawful

Legal Update: Connecticut Supreme Court Adopts SCOTUS Definition of “Supervisor” for Establishing Vicarious Liability for Hostile Work Environment Claims teaser
September 17, 2024

Legal Update: Connecticut Supreme Court Adopts SCOTUS Definition of “Supervisor” for Establishing Vicarious Liability for Hostile Work Environment Claims

Legal Update: Minutes Matter: Connecticut Supreme Court Requires Pay for Post-Shift Security Screenings and Rejects De Minimis Doctrine for Wage Claims teaser
February 12, 2026

Legal Update: Minutes Matter: Connecticut Supreme Court Requires Pay for Post-Shift Security Screenings and Rejects De Minimis Doctrine for Wage Claims

Legal Update: General Counsel Memorandum Urges NLRB to Find Certain Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-or-Pay Provisions Unlawful teaser
October 29, 2024

Legal Update: General Counsel Memorandum Urges NLRB to Find Certain Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-or-Pay Provisions Unlawful

Legal Update: Connecticut Supreme Court Adopts SCOTUS Definition of “Supervisor” for Establishing Vicarious Liability for Hostile Work Environment Claims teaser
September 17, 2024

Legal Update: Connecticut Supreme Court Adopts SCOTUS Definition of “Supervisor” for Establishing Vicarious Liability for Hostile Work Environment Claims

Legal Update: Court Halts Enforcement of FTC Non-Compete Final Rule teaser
August 23, 2024

Legal Update: Court Halts Enforcement of FTC Non-Compete Final Rule

Legal Update: Court Enjoins FTC Noncompete Rule Limited to Named Parties teaser
July 22, 2024

Legal Update: Court Enjoins FTC Noncompete Rule Limited to Named Parties

Legal Update: Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Law Gets Major Overhaul: Who's Covered, What Qualifies, and More teaser
June 12, 2024

Legal Update: Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Law Gets Major Overhaul: Who's Covered, What Qualifies, and More

Legal Update: FTC Votes to Finalize Rule Banning Non-Compete Agreements Nationwide teaser
April 25, 2024

Legal Update: FTC Votes to Finalize Rule Banning Non-Compete Agreements Nationwide

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending teaser
January 9, 2024

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending

Legal Update: New York Inches Closer to Banning Non-Compete Agreements teaser
June 23, 2023

Legal Update: New York Inches Closer to Banning Non-Compete Agreements



Legal Update: Court Halts Enforcement of FTC Non-Compete Final Rule teaser
August 23, 2024

Legal Update: Court Halts Enforcement of FTC Non-Compete Final Rule

Legal Update: Court Enjoins FTC Noncompete Rule Limited to Named Parties teaser
July 22, 2024

Legal Update: Court Enjoins FTC Noncompete Rule Limited to Named Parties

Legal Update: Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Law Gets Major Overhaul: Who's Covered, What Qualifies, and More teaser
June 12, 2024

Legal Update: Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Law Gets Major Overhaul: Who's Covered, What Qualifies, and More

Legal Update: FTC Votes to Finalize Rule Banning Non-Compete Agreements Nationwide teaser
April 25, 2024

Legal Update: FTC Votes to Finalize Rule Banning Non-Compete Agreements Nationwide

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending teaser
January 9, 2024

Legal Update: New York Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Vetoed; FTC and NLRB Proposed Nationwide Bans Remain Pending

Legal Update: New York Inches Closer to Banning Non-Compete Agreements teaser
June 23, 2023

Legal Update: New York Inches Closer to Banning Non-Compete Agreements


News


June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
August 21, 2025

Robinson+Cole Presents 2025 Awards

Robinson+Cole Presents 2025 Awards teaser
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
August 21, 2025

Robinson+Cole Presents 2025 Awards

Robinson+Cole Presents 2025 Awards teaser
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
June 6, 2024

2024 Chambers USA Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
2024 <i>Chambers USA</i> Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas teaser
June 1, 2023

2023 Chambers USA Recognizes 22 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Eight Practice Areas

2023 <i>Chambers USA</i> Recognizes 22 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Eight Practice Areas teaser
September 30, 2022

Robinson+Cole Recognized by Benchmark Litigation

April 29, 2022

Stephen Aronson Quoted in Washington Post Article on ESPN Employment Lawsuit

Washington Post
October 7, 2021

Robinson+Cole Recognized by Benchmark Litigation


October 31, 2024

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 Super Lawyers®

Thomson Reuters
Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2024 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
June 6, 2024

2024 Chambers USA Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
2024 <i>Chambers USA</i> Recognizes 24 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Nine Practice Areas teaser
June 1, 2023

2023 Chambers USA Recognizes 22 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Eight Practice Areas

2023 <i>Chambers USA</i> Recognizes 22 Robinson+Cole Lawyers in Eight Practice Areas teaser
September 30, 2022

Robinson+Cole Recognized by Benchmark Litigation

April 29, 2022

Stephen Aronson Quoted in Washington Post Article on ESPN Employment Lawsuit

Washington Post
October 7, 2021

Robinson+Cole Recognized by Benchmark Litigation


Events


Past

Employment Law Updates for 2025

Jan 16 2025
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts HR Committee (AGC-HR)
Past

Join the Bar: An Evening with Tufts Lawyers

Jun 4 2020
Tufts Lawyers Association
Past

Employment Law Updates for 2025

Jan 16 2025
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts HR Committee (AGC-HR)
Past

Join the Bar: An Evening with Tufts Lawyers

Jun 4 2020
Tufts Lawyers Association
Past

Employment Litigation

Apr 15 2015
University of Connecticut School of Law
Past

Connecticut State Law Update

Oct 24 2014
United States Law Firm Group's (USLFG) Annual Meeting
Past

Use of Social Media Evidence in Labor and Employment Cases

Oct 24 2014
United States Law Firm Group's (USLFG) Annual Meeting
Past

In the Workplace

Oct 23 2014
Radio Talk Show
Past

Employment Litigation

Apr 15 2015
University of Connecticut School of Law
Past

Connecticut State Law Update

Oct 24 2014
United States Law Firm Group's (USLFG) Annual Meeting
Past

Use of Social Media Evidence in Labor and Employment Cases

Oct 24 2014
United States Law Firm Group's (USLFG) Annual Meeting
Past

In the Workplace

Oct 23 2014
Radio Talk Show

Health Law Diagnosis Blog


Below is an excerpt of the Health Law Diagnosis blog posts authored by Stephen.

Connecticut Legislature Passes Law Limiting Physician, PA and APRN Non-Compete Agreements

On June 5, 2023, the Connecticut Legislature passed Public Act No. 23-97, “An Act Concerning Health and Wellness for Connecticut Residents” (“the Act”). Sections 13 through 15 of the Act make important changes to Connecticut law governing physician, physician assistant (PA), and advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) non-compete agreements. These changes are summarized below and scheduled to take effect July 1, 2023. Governor Lamont is expected to sign the Act but has not done so as of the date of this publication. Physician Non-Compete Agreements Existing Connecticut law requires physician non-compete agreements to meet certain requirements in order to be enforceable. Physician non-competes may not have a duration of more than one year, and must be (i) limited to a 15-mile radius from the physician’s primary practice site, (ii) separately and individually signed by the physician, (iii) necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, (iv) reasonably limited in time, geographic scope, and practice restrictions as necessary to protect such  business interest, and (v) otherwise consistent with law and public policy.  (See Connecticut General Statutes § 20-14p). The Act first changes the definition of “primary practice site” (which currently is based on where the physician generates a majority of professional revenue) to instead require the primary practice site to be a single location, mutually agreed upon by the parties, and expressly defined in the non-compete agreement. The Act also newly provides that physician non-compete agreements entered into, amended, extended, or renewed on or after October 1, 2023, are generally unenforceable if (i) the physician does not agree to a proposed material change to the compensation terms of employment before the agreement is extended or renewed and (ii) the agreement expires or is terminated by the employer, other than a termination for cause. Notably, this new directive related to material compensation changes does not apply to a non-compete agreement between a physician and a group practice of 35 physicians or less if the physicians own a majority of the practice. APRN and PA Non-Compete Agreements Connecticut previously did not place statutory limitations on APRN or PA non-compete agreements. The Act implements new limitations on APRN and PA non-compete agreements similar to the limitations on physician non-compete agreements. The Act applies to APRN and PA non-compete agreements entered into, amended, extended, or renewed on or after October 1, 2023.  Such APRN and PA non-compete agreements may not have a duration longer than one year and must be limited to a 15-mile radius from the primary site where the APRN or PA practices.  The definition of primary site for APRNs and PAs matches the definition of primary site for physicians (i.e., it must be a single location agreed upon in writing between the parties to the agreement). Additionally, under the Act, as with physician non-competes, an APRN or PA covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is (i) necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, (ii) reasonably limited in time, geographic scope, and practice restrictions as needed to protect that interest, (iii) separately and individually signed by the APRN or the PA, and (iv) otherwise consistent with law and public policy. The Act also establishes exceptions to the enforceability of APRN and PA non-compete agreements consistent with those applicable to physician non-compete agreements.  For example, APRN and PA non-compete agreements are unenforceable when an employer terminates the employment relationship without cause, or when the employment agreement was not made in anticipation of a partnership or ownership agreement and the agreement expires or is not renewed, unless before such expiration or non-renewal the employer made a bona fide offer to renew the agreement on the same or similar terms.  The Act additionally deems APRN and PA non-compete agreements unenforceable when the APRN or PA does not agree to a proposed material compensation change in connection with a renewal or extension of an agreement, and the agreement is not renewed by the employer or is terminated by the employer (other than for cause). However, the PA and APRN non-compete provisions of the Act notably do not contain the exception described above concerning enforceability of a physician non-compete regardless of a material compensation change by a group practice of 35 physicians or less that is a majority physician-owned. Effective Date & Additional Changes in the Act The Sections of the Act described above will take effect on July 1, 2023, absent an unexpected veto of the Act by the Governor, but as noted above the material statutory changes will apply to non-compete agreements entered into, amended, extended, or renewed on or after October 1, 2023. The Act also makes various changes to Connecticut health care laws in other areas, including licensure, hospital privileges, medical records requests, and the opioid prescribing process. These changes will be discussed in detail in future Health Law Diagnosis posts.

Visit Blog

Appeals Court Reverses ADA Jury Verdict for Pharmacist with Fear of Needles

In Stevens v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 15-277 (March 21, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a jury award of almost $2 million that had been awarded in favor of a pharmacist who had a fear of needles and could not comply with Rite Aid’s new policy that required pharmacists to administer immunization injections to customers. In 2011, in an effort to fill a vaccination void in the healthcare market, Rite Aid imposed a new requirement that all pharmacists must administer immunizations.  Rite Aid revised its job description, requiring pharmacists to obtain valid immunization certificates and establishing immunizations as a part of the pharmacist’s essential job functions. The plaintiff had worked for Rite Aid for 34 years.  After receiving notice of the new requirement, he presented Rite Aid with a note from his treating physician stating that he suffered from trypanophobia, a fear of needles.  His condition caused him to become lightheaded, pale, and feeling that he might faint.  The physician stated that the plaintiff could not safely administer an injection since the likelihood that he would faint would be unsafe for both the patient and the plaintiff.  Due to his trypanophobia, the plaintiff requested that Rite Aid provide him with a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  A short time later, Rite Aid terminated his employment. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate his disability under the ADA.  After a trial, a jury awarded him back pay damages of $485,633, front pay damages of $1,227,188, and compensatory damages of $900,000 reduced by the trial court to $125,000.  The parties appealed. In reversing the jury verdict, the appellate court explained that, in order to state a claim under the ADA, an employee must establish that he was “qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation.”  The appellate court determined that performing immunizations was an essential function of the plaintiff’s position as a pharmacist and that he could not perform that essential function of his job.  The evidence showed that Rite Aid adopted its policy to fill a need in the marketplace for immunizations, that Rite Aid revised its pharmacist job description to include immunization of customers as an essential job function, and that it had terminated the employment of another pharmacist who refused to administer immunizations.  The evidence also showed that the plaintiff could not administer immunizations. The appellate court also determined that the plaintiff failed to prove that a reasonable accommodation existed at the time of his termination.  The appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that Rite Aid could have offered him desensitization therapy, transferred him to a lower-paying pharmacy technician position, or  hired a nurse to administer immunizations as reasonable accommodations.  The appellate court rejected his suggestion of desensitization therapy because the ADA does not require employers to offer medical treatment as a reasonable accommodation.  The appellate court also noted that Rite Aid had offered to transfer him to another position but he did not accept that offer.  Finally, the appellate court determined that the ADA did not require Rite Aid to hire a nurse to perform immunizations, which would eliminate an essential job function of the pharmacist position.   This post was co-authored by Valeriya Svystun, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Valeriya is not yet admitted to practice law.

Visit Blog

11th Circuit Invalidates Key Provisions in Florida Law Prohibiting Physician Inquiries About Patient Firearm Ownership

In Wollschlaeger v. Florida, No. 12-14009 (Feb. 16, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit invalidated provisions of the Florida Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act that prohibited physicians from (i) asking patients if they (or their family members) own firearms or ammunition, (ii) documenting firearm ownership in patient medical records, and (iii) harassing patients about firearm ownership during examinations. The appellate court did not invalidate the Act’s antidiscrimination provision that prohibits physicians from discriminating against patients based solely on firearm ownership. Physicians who violated the Act were subject to disciplinary action by the Florida Board of Medicine, which promulgated regulations in 2014 and 2016 setting forth mandatory penalties for violations. The Act was passed in 2011 by the Florida legislature in response to anecdotal reports of physicians inquiring or commenting to patients about firearm ownership. One anecdote reported that a pediatrician sought to terminate a physician-patient relationship because the patient’s mother refused to disclose information concerning firearm ownership in the family home. After its enactment, physicians and medical organizations immediately challenged the Act as violating the First Amendment’s free speech clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In reaching its decision, the appellate court noted that the American Medical Association encourages members to discuss the presence of household firearms with patients to prevent and reduce firearm-related deaths and injuries, particularly to children. The court determined that the provisions in question contravene the First Amendment because they were speaker-focused and imposed content-based restrictions, as they only applied to speech of doctors and medical professionals in connection with the topic of firearm ownership. In support of the Act, Florida argued that the Act regulates professional conduct, the Act is rationally related to regulatory oversight, and any effect on physician speech is incidental to Florida’s interest in physician licensure. The court rejected Florida’s arguments, explaining “we do not think it is appropriate to subject content-based restrictions on speech by those engaged in a certain profession to mere rational basis review” and warning that “if rationality were the standard, the government could – based on its disagreement with the message being conveyed – easily tell ... accountants that they cannot discuss legal tax avoidance techniques, and so on and so on.” The appellate court also reasoned that patients are able to choose another medical provider if their physician asks too many intrusive questions, and that Florida did not prove that physicians took away patients’ firearms or otherwise infringed on patients’ rights to own firearms. The court rejected Florida’s argument that the Act’s challenged provisions were necessary to support its interest in regulating the medical profession, instead focusing on the applicable standard of care that “encourages doctors to ask questions about firearms (and other potential safety hazards).” Although the appellate court struck down as unconstitutional the inquiry, recordkeeping, and anti-harassment provisions, the court upheld the Act’s prohibition against discrimination against patients based solely on firearm ownership. The court reasoned that the antidiscrimination provision had no First Amendment concerns when applied solely to expressive conduct such as delaying treatment and test results, or failing to respond to patient phone messages. The court finally noted that the plaintiffs had not challenged whether the Act’s antidiscrimination provision is unconstitutionally vague, which could portend a challenge to this provision in the future.   This post was co-authored by Valeriya Svystun, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Valeriya is not yet admitted to practice law.

Visit Blog