News & Publications

January 2017
Crumbie Law Group, LLC and Turf Music announce the re-entry to the United States of world-renowned reggae artist, Reanno Devon Gordon, better known by his stage name, Busy Signal....Read More


Hospital Tax Law News
January 2015
IRS Issues Final Regulations Under Section 501(r) by Dan Smolnick...Read More


Department of Revenue Service Initiatives
2015 Developments
So far this year, only a few key issues from DRS have reached the public. Among them are:Read more


The Verdict Is In
December 2014

Verdict for our client: A jury returned a verdict in favor of our client after a three day trial in New Haven Superior Court. In this wrongful termination case, our lawyers argued that our client, the plaintiff, was terminated because he attempted to exercise his rights under the Workers Compensation Act, after he slipped in the defendant employer’s parking lot. Read more


How to Report Employer Sponsored Health Coverage on the Form W-2
January 2014

Employers who provide applicable employer sponsored coverage under a group health plan are subject to new reporting requirements.
The Affordable Care Act requires employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer sponsored group plan. This reporting does not necessarily mean that the coverage is taxable income to the employee. Under current law, the value of the employer’s excludable contribution to health coverage continues to be non-taxable. Read more

Hospital Tax Alert
January 2014
The Internal Revenue Service is about to release two Notices concerning the complex regulations associated with the new rules governing hospitals under the Affordable Care Act. Compliance with these regulations is required for hospitals to retain their tax exempt status and the IRS has been receiving information as to just how many hospitals are having difficulty complying with the law. Already, over 1700 hospitals are under IRS review. Read more

Insurance Alert - Captive Insurers in IRS Cross Hairs
December 2013

The Internal Revenue Service has privately announced, off the record, that it is concerned that many captive insurers are actually no more than risk pools operating as loss reserves for their owners. Accordingly, the Service has commenced a systematic enforcement initiative against captives and their owners. Read more


Hospital Tax Newsletter 10-28-13

Fall 2013

The Affordable Care Act has created a sea of new tax requirements for businesses. Among these is new Section 501(r) of the Internal Revenue Code. We have found that there is considerable conflicting information confronting our hospital clients concerning how this new law will affect them and how they need to prepare now to avoid the penalties for noncompliance.

In 2013, new proposed regulations have been promulgated by the Treasury Department. The penalties for noncompliance caninclude fines and loss of the hospital’s tax exemption. Hospitals need to understand these rules now. This newsletter offers a gen-eral overview of some of the highlights. Read Full Newsletter


Recent Developments in Employment Law From the Supreme Court
By L. Kay Wilson, Esq. August 15, 2013

U. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (June 24, 2013)

A very recent Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2013, makes it much easier for employers to defend claims of retaliation under Title VII. According to the decision in Nassar, “. . .Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” Nassar, 133 S.Ct. at 2528.

This means that employers who are able to prove legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the challenged employment action (including termination) will prevail.

Contrast this causation standard with the lessened causation standard for status based claims under Title VII (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin), which allows for “mixed motive” liability for employers. For status based claims under Title VII, “. . .[i]t suffices to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer’s motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer’s decision.” Nassar, 133 S.Ct. at 2523.

Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S.Ct. 2434 (June 24, 2013)

On the same day that Nassar came down, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Vance clarifying that an employee is a supervisor only if that employee is able to take tangible employment actions against the alleged victim of the discriminatory harassment. Vance, 133 S.Ct. at 2439. Tangible employment actions are those that materially affect the employee, such as hiring, firing, disciplining, promoting, demoting, transferring, and giving raises.

The Court specifically rejected the definition of supervisor suggested by the EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999) as being too “nebulous”. Id. at 2443. The EEOC Enforcement Guidance, which lower courts had adopted, tied supervisor status to “the ability to exercise significant direction over another’s daily work.” Id. citing EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), 1999 WL 33305874, at *3.

In issuing this bright line rule, the majority opinion reasoned that it would aid in substantially clarifying which legal standard to apply in determining liability, would facilitate summary judgment, and would lessen the intellectual burdens on juries charged with applying the relevant standards to the evidence. Id. at 2449 – 2450.

If you have any questions about the applicability of these two decisions to situations in your company or organization, or have other employment law challenges, please contact Attorney L. Kay Wilson at Crumbie Law Group, LLC. Attorney Wilson has over 15 years of experience in the defense of employment law claims in state and federal court. Formerly a federal attorney for the U. S. Postal Service, she has handled a variety of workplace environment issues and often advises clients on risk management and litigation prevention. Attorney Wilson is also available to deliver Sexual Harassment Prevention Training, as mandated by Connecticut law.


July 2013 - Another court trial and another win for our firm and our client. Hartford Superior Court rendered a decision in favor of our client in this case where a municipal police department and some of its leadership were sued when a young man attempted to evade police and crashed his vehicle at a high rate of speed. The young man died in the crash and subsequently this lawsuit was filed. After a trial lasting 7 days, argued by a Crumbie Law Group attorney, the Court on July 24th rendered its decision in our favor. Read Decision


June 2013 – A recent Crumbie Law Group Massachusetts jury trial verdict was published on Pg. 9 of the New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis. In this case, our attorneys made the credibility of the plaintiff a key issue in this negligence action against our client.  After a 3-hour deliberation, the jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client. Read case review and analysis in the New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

July 2013 – Connecticut Law Tribune Article co-authored by a Crumbie Law Group attorney "Death of the Yellow Record", CT Law Tribune, July 2013 By M. Caitlin S. Anderson and Rebecca M. Harris


By Keila Torres Ocasioand John Burgeson, Staff Writers, CT Post



"Crumbie’s passion, devotion paying off", Hartford Business Journal, October 2011
By Stan Simpson, Special to the Hartford Business Journal

"No Limits", CT Law Tribune, April 2011
By Mary Grady, CT Law Tribune

"Crumbie Law Group Expands", Hartford Courant, March 2011
By Dr. Fred McKinney, President/CEO of the Greater New England Minority Supplier Development Council


Send Us an Email

Contact Us

650 Farmington Ave
Hartford, CT 06105
Fax: 860.760.0308