Naugatuck Chamber President & CEO Lynn Ward enjoying some chicken at Popeyes, located at 111 Rubber Avenue in Naugatuck. Stop in today!

Confused with too many advertising options? Wondering what’s working? Are you mired in metrics and dashboards? Simonetti Media Consulting can help. With over 40 years’ experience in the local Connecticut market, Simonetti Media Consulting is your partner in bridging the gap between your ad campaign and sales revenue. We specialize in creating advertising campaigns utilizing traditional and digital media. For a limited time only, Simonetti Media Consulting is offering our popular “Review and Recommend Plan” at a special chamber member price of $299 (normally $499) for up to 3 hours of work. The plan includes: reviewing your current business goals, core customer(s) profile, current marketing strategy, return on investment and recommend revisions or new strategies to your advertising campaign. View all the services we offer at www.simonettimedia.com. If interested, let’s have a conversation. Contact us at simonettimedia@gmail.com or call Jim Simonetti @ 860-268-6379.

1st place team: We Do Life...Together, A Division of ICES, Inc.: Tom Murphy, Jeff Slapikas, Chet Doheny, Matt Parlato

2nd place team: Naugatuck Fire Department: Eric Battis, Jack Vaillancourt, Corey Andrew, Josh McFarland

Male Longest Drive: Tom Murphy of We Do Life Together, A Division of ICES, Inc.

Female Longest Drive: Dawn Derwin of Ion Bank; Naugatuck Chamber Board of Directors

Breakfast Sponsor: The Watermark at East Hill

Lunch Sponsor: Ion Bank

Gift Sponsors: Diversified Financial Solutions and Service Engineering

Air Cannon Sponsor: The McSherry Law Office

Cart Sponsors: Re/Max Rise and We Do Life...Together, A Division of ICES, Inc.

Cigar Sponsor: Liberty Bank

Beverage Sponsors: McCormack Insurance Agency - State Farm, The Rubber Ducky, and Stutsky Law LLC

Snack Bar Sponsor: Luso Cleaning Services

Putting Green Sponsors: Attorney Timothy Fitzpatrick, LQOC (Lake Quassapaug Outing Club) and Performance Feeders Inc.

Hole-In-One-Prize Sponsors: Chittenden Group and J&M Automotive Sales & Service

Sign Sponsor: Corporate Display Specialties, Inc.

Our online match-up system at URCommunityCares.org is a collaborative, self-generating, and self-sustaining solution for interested communities and organizations. People age 70+ and/or 18+ with a physical disability comprise roughly one-third of every town’s population. This sector is growing in size, presenting new challenges for social services and public safety. Local residents can work together to assist neighbors and help them overcome risks of falling, mobility restrictions, isolation, and loneliness. Please urge your neighbors to sign up to be volunteers (age 15+) to support their neighbors in need.

Do you have upcoming events, company news, specials, or other-related information you'd like the Chamber to promote in our August Chamber Member newsletter or on one of our many social media platforms? You can submit your content by emailing Communications Director David Huck. Leverage the Chamber and allow us to spread your message to thousands of individuals.

Wednesday, August 15

7:45 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

Aria Wedding and Banquet Facility

45 Murphy Road, Prospect, CT

Incumbent Worker Training (IWT) is a type of work-based, employer-driven training for employees who need training to upgrade their skills to

IWT is developed in collaboration with the employer. It requires long term planning and commitment on the part of the employer's CEO, CFO, HR, supervisors and employees.

The Northwest Regional Workforce Investment Board (NRWIB) reimburses contracted training costs up to $2,000 per employee for IT training, and up to $3,000 per employee for manufacturing training. To get the proposal and contract process started please contact Jeffrey Chorches - chorches@careerresources.org.

The workforce board contracts with the employer to arrange the training. The employer chooses the job training course, the training provider, training schedule, and the employees who will participate. Employers are encouraged to backfill open positions that result from incumbent worker training with unemployed and underemployed individuals. One of the goals of U. S. Dept. of Labor Hl-b grants is to make U.S. employers less dependent upon non-citizens.

This HR Corner is brought to you by Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP. Written by Attorney Nick Zaino

The United States Supreme Court recently issued several major decisions impacting employers and businesses. Two cases expand religious and free speech rights, and one case strikes down affirmative action in higher education, prompting questions about affirmative action obligations in employment, and the impact on DEI initiatives.

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy explaining an employers’ obligations under Title VII to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs, observances, and practices. The Court held that employers must show that the “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” This is a significantly more rigorous standard for employers to meet than the long-standing prior standard, whereby employers could deny an accommodation request by showing that the requested accommodation requires an employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost.”

Main Takeaway for Employers: This stricter standard makes it harder for employers to deny a request for a religious accommodation. This new standard is akin to the standard employers must utilize when considering reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court, stated that “courts must apply the test in a manner that takes into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer.”

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the owner of a graphic design business sought to expand her business to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. The owner stated that she would not, however, create websites celebrating marriages that defied her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.

Colorado law prohibits a place of public accommodation from refusing to offer its goods and services to individuals based on their protected class including, among others, their sexual orientation. The business owner argued that the Colorado law violated her constitutional rights of free speech and religious expression. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, sided with the business owner. It held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing the owner to create expressive designs that would violate her free speech rights.

Main Takeaway for Businesses and Employer: In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized that the business owner designed and produced a product that was considered “pure speech” and “expressive in nature.” Thus, it appears that the case is limited in its application to businesses that sell expressive content or services. The case does not mean that business or employers can, carte blanche, refuse to sell their products or services to individuals based on their personal and/or religious beliefs. Employers must comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College held that race-based admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, stated: “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Main Takeaway for Employers: The Court’s decision does not have any immediate impact on employers who are required to maintain an affirmative action plan or DEI initiatives. Employers should, however, take note of the Court’s opinion and reexamine their affirmative action and/or DEI plans to ensure they are legally compliant.