Connecticut Lawyer Carole Topol Orland Gets Sued For Employee Mistreatment

20613
SHARE

With regards to the first point, Ms. Russell stated in her complaint that her scheduled hours were 8:30 am to 5:30 pm during the week days. She also stated that she was often there early and stayed late because “Broder and Carole Topol Orland, Esq. expected her to answer [the phone]” even if it rang at or after 5:30 pm. Ms. Russell further alleged that she was expected to respond in a timely manner to emails she received during her scheduled time off and was required to do so using her personal computer or tablet.

Connecticut state law, also cited in the lawsuit, has its own “duties test” to help determine whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt. Although there are administrative and professional exceptions, Ms. Russell would have needed to supervise other people and be able to exercise independent judgment in her duties in order to be considered exempt under state law.

Again, the jury will be the decision-maker when it comes to whether Kathleen Russell should have been paid overtime by Broder & Orland, LLC because of her consistent schedule of more than 40 hours each week. For we, the people, to keep up with and understand the case at hand as it moves forward it is important to understand the duties and pay associated with whether an employee is legally exempt or non-exempt. This cursory glance certainly gives credibility to the plaintiff and her legal team.

ERISA & Fiduciary Duties

ERISA is another federal law that Ms. Russell alleges her former employer (namely, Carole Topol Orland, Esq., and her firm Broder & Orland, LLC) violated. ERISA is an acronym for Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It puts minimum standards into place for private industry (non-government employers) retirement plans. To be a defined plan, it must be employer funded, promise a specific monthly benefit for retirement, or tell you how to figure out what you’ll get each month when you retire.