Working Together

Prior to its March 25, 2025 deadline, the Connecticut General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee likely finished up its work for this legislative session and approved a final flurry of bills that would generally expand workers’ rights and protections. Some of these bills (e.g., restricting covenants not to compete, non-disclosure agreements, and warehouse quotas) reflect trends that have been occurring in other states and/or had been considered in prior legislative sessions but never came to fruition. 

The following is a brief summary of the bills that the Committee has voted favorably on and advanced out of committee for further consideration.  (Please note: These bills have not been passed by the full General Assembly or signed by the Governor; they have only been approved by the Committee.) 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

H.B. No. 6904 (“An Act Concerning Unemployment Benefits For Striking Workers”) would allow individuals to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits after 14 days of a continuous “labor dispute” (i.e., a strike).

S.B. No. 1219 (“An Act Increasing The Threshold Amount For Felony Unemployment Compensation Fraud”) would increase the threshold amount for felony unemployment compensation fraud (as opposed to misdemeanor fraud) to fraud that is more than $2,000.  Currently, the threshold amount is $500.

S.B. No. 1275 (“An Act Implementing The Recommendations Of The Labor Department”) would 1) shorten the time in which an employer can protest any unemployment benefits it contends have been improperly charged to its unemployment insurance quarterly statements due to fraud or error from 60 days to 40 days,  and 2) make the Unemployed Workers’ Advocate a full time position in the state employee classified service (instead of a position that serves at the pleasure of the Commissioner of Labor).  In unrelated matters, the bill would also 1) require physicians and advanced practice registered nurses to report suspected occupational diseases to the Department of Labor within 48 hours of discovery, and 2) make a technical correction to the prevailing wage statute.

INCREASED WORKER RIGHTS (AND BENEFITS)

S.B. No. 1030 (“An Act Concerning Breastfeeding In The Workplace”) would align the state’s breastfeeding statute with a recently enacted federal law.  The bill provides that an employer shall provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for such employee's nursing child, or to breastfeed on site at her workplace, each time such employee has the need to express breast milk or breastfeed (and removes the current state statute’s tie-in to that activity taking place during a meal or break period). 

S.B. No. 1035 (“An Act Concerning Limitations On The Use Of Nondisclosure Agreements”) would limit the misuse of nondisclosure agreements. It would provide that any provision in an agreement between an employer and a prospective, current or former employee or independent contractor shall be void as against public policy if such provision prohibits disparagement or disclosure relating to conduct the employee or independent contractor reasonably believes to be a discriminatory employment practice. It would also prohibit an employer from 1) refusing to hire or employ, discriminating in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, or barring or discharging any employee or independent contractor because such person disclosed conduct the person reasonably believed to be a  discriminatory employment practice, or because such person disparaged the employer for engaging in conduct the person reasonably believed to be a discriminatory employment practice, or 2) requiring or requesting a prospective, current or former employee or independent contractor to enter into an agreement containing a provision that is void pursuant to this bill, or for an employer to attempt  to enforce such provision.

The bill provides that any provision in an agreement between an employer and an employee or volunteer that the individual will not disclose or discuss conduct, or the  existence of a settlement involving conduct, that the employee or volunteer reasonably believed under state, federal or common law to be (a) legally impermissible discrimination, (b) legally impermissible  harassment, (c) legally impermissible retaliation directed at an employee or volunteer, (d) a wage and hour violation or (e) a sexual assault, or (f) other conduct that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy, shall be void and unenforceable.

Prohibited nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions in an agreement between an employee or volunteer and an employer are those provisions concerning legally impermissible conduct that occurs at the workplace, at work-related events coordinated by or through the employer, between employees or volunteers, or between an employer and an employee or volunteer, whether on or off the employment premises.

Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions include those contained in employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, agreements to pay compensation in exchange for the release of a legal claim, or any other form of agreement between the employer and an employee or a volunteer.

The bill would prohibit an employer from 1) Discharging or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee or volunteer for disclosing or discussing conduct that the employee or volunteer reasonably believed to be legally impermissible discrimination, legally impermissible harassment, legally impermissible retaliation directed at an employee or volunteer, a wage and hour violation, or a sexual assault, or that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy, occurring in the workplace, at work-related events coordinated by or through the employer, between employees or volunteers, or between the employer and an employee or volunteer, whether on or off the employment premises; 2) requesting or requiring that  an employee or volunteer enter into any agreement provision that is prohibited by this section; or 3) enforcing a provision of an agreement  prohibited by this bill, whether through a lawsuit, a threat to enforce  or any other attempt to influence a party to comply with a provision in  any agreement that is prohibited by this bill.

This bill would not prohibit: 1) An employer  and an employee or volunteer from protecting trade secrets, proprietary information or confidential information that does not involve illegal  acts; 2) an employee or volunteer from requesting that the employee  and employer enter into a binding written agreement, which may  include terms and conditions that preclude the employer from  disclosing certain confidential information relating to an employee or a  volunteer that does not involve illegal acts; and 3) the enforcement of a provision in any agreement that prohibits the disclosure of the amount  paid in settlement of a claim.

H.B. No. 6907 (“An Act Concerning The Use Of Quotas By Warehouse Distribution Centers”) contains similar provisions to a bill from prior sessions of the General Assembly that did not pass.  This bill would cover employees at certain “warehouse distribution centers” and would require employers to provide each employee a written description/notice of each performance quota to which the employee is subject (and potential adverse employment actions an employee may suffer for a failure to meet the quota). An employer may not take adverse action against an employee for failure to meet a quota that has not been disclosed. 

An employee shall not be required to meet any quota that prevents compliance with the duty-free lunch/meal periods laws, along with “the use of bathroom facilities, including the reasonable time to travel to and from bathroom facilities.”  Any current or former employee who believes that meeting a quota caused a violation of these rights may request a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject and a copy of the employee's own personal work speed data for the most recent 90 days. An employer that receives such a request shall comply with it as soon as practicable, but not later than 5 days after the request.

The bill further provides that there shall be a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation if an employer in any manner discriminates, retaliates or takes any adverse action against any employee within 90 days after the employee: 1) initiates the employee's first request in a calendar year for such information about a quota or personal work speed data; or 2) makes a complaint related to a quota alleging any violation of these provisions to the Labor Commissioner.  The bill provides a right to seek redress for such violations through either administrative proceedings before the Department of Labor or a private right of action in the Superior Court.   

S.B. No. 1254 (“An Act Establishing Additional Protections For Warehouse Workers”) is very similar to H.B. 6907 with respect to warehouse worker quotas; however, this version of the bill does not cover any exempt employees and also sets the threshold for covered employers at 250 employees at any single warehouse distribution center (or 1,000 total employees in the state) instead of 100 employees.

S.B. No. 8 (“An Act Concerning Protections For Workers And Enhancements To Workers' Rights”) is very similar to H.B. 6907 with respect to warehouse worker quotas, and H.B. 6904 with respect to making striking workers eligible for unemployment compensation after having been on strike for 14 continuous days.

S.B. No. 1484 (“An Act Implementing Artificial Intelligence Protections For Employees”)  would further limit the use of electronic monitoring by an employer to circumstances necessary to: 1) Ensure the quality of goods and services; 2) conduct periodic  assessments of employee performance; 3) ensure compliance with state  or federal law; 4) protect the health, safety and welfare of employees; 5) protect the security of the employer's facilities or computer networks; or 6) administer wages and benefits.  The bill would require an employer that engages in such electronic monitoring to narrowly tailor such monitoring in order to accomplish the intended purpose in a manner that is least invasive to employees, and to maintain reasonable data security practices in order to protect the confidentiality of employees' information and limit access to such information.  The bill would make it a violation of the law for an employer to engage in any type of electronic monitoring to: 1) Threaten the health, safety and welfare of employees or the general public; 2) monitor an employee who is not performing work-related tasks; 3) obtain information about an employee's medical history; 4) obtain biometric information consisting of data generated by electronic measurements of an  employee's unique physical characteristics used to authenticate or  ascertain such employee's identity, such as a fingerprint, voice print or retina or iris image; 5) obtain information about an employee's membership in any class protected from employment discrimination under state law; or 6) punish employees for engaging in activity protected by state or federal law.  The law would prohibit employers from requiring an employee to wear a monitoring device or install an application on an employee's personal device for purposes of location tracking. The law would amend the prior written notice requirements with respect to electronic monitoring by employers by requiring that such notice: 1) include the intended use of any information collected by such monitoring and how any information collected will be stored and for how long, 2) include a statement of the employees' rights under the electronic monitoring statutes, and 3) be provided in plain language, in English and in the primary  language of the employee.  The bill would further prohibit an employer from engaging in electronic monitoring on any property owned or leased by an employee, such as an employee's residence or vehicle. The bill would further establish various requirements concerning the use of artificial intelligence systems by employers.

S.B. No. 830 (“An Act Establishing Safety Standards To Prevent Heat-Related Illness In Workplaces”) would create safety standards to prevent employee exposure to the risk of heat-related illness.  The bill would require employers to provide certain cool down areas and breaks when the temperature exceeds certain thresholds, along with providing training to employees.

H.B. No. 6407 (“An Act Requiring Employers To Display A Poster Containing Information On Veterans' Benefits And Services”) would require the Connecticut Department of Labor to create a model workplace poster containing information on veterans' benefits and services that employers would then be required to display in the workplace.

WORKERS COMPENSATION

H.B. No. 6408 (“An Act Expanding Compensation To Dependents For A Death Resulting From An Accident”) would provide that when employees with no presumptive dependents (e.g., spouse or minor children) die due to a work-related accident, in addition to those who are wholly dependent in fact upon them being able to receive their workers’ compensation benefits, the deceased employee’s next of kin would also be eligible to receive those benefits, to be divided equally amongst them.

H.B. No. 6409 (“An Act Concerning Undue Delay In Workers' Compensation Claims”) would require employers or insurers acting on behalf of employers to 1) provide notice of a proposed discontinuance or reduction of coverage of an employee's prescription medication under the Workers’ Compensation Act (with the bill setting forth what the notice must contain), and 2) obtain approval from a Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge before such discontinuance or reduction takes effect.

H.B. No. 6954 (“An Act Adding Witnessing A Serious Physical Injury As A Qualifying Event For Purposes Of Post-Traumatic Stress Injury Workers' Compensation Coverage”) would add witnessing a serious physical injury to a person that does not result in the death or permanent disfigurement of such person as a qualifying event for an employee to be eligible for workers' compensation coverage for a post-traumatic stress injury.  This post-traumatic stress injury benefit is limited to police officers, parole officers, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, and Department of Correction employees and telecommunicators.

H.B. No. 7046 (“An Act Making Revisions To The Second Injury Fund”) would provide that self-insured employers and insured employers can deduct from payments only actual third-party recoveries from a tortfeasor with respect to the workers’ compensation Second Injury Fund.

S.B. No. 1222 (“An Act Concerning Portal To Portal Workers' Compensation Coverage For Public Works Department Employees”) would extend “portal-to-portal” workers’ compensation coverage (which currently applies to certain first responders) to public works department employees in circumstances when they: 1) are subject to emergency calls while off duty by the terms of their employment, 2) are responding to a direct order to appear at their work assignment when nonessential employees are excused from working, or 3) have worked two or more mandatory overtime shifts on consecutive days.

H.B. No. 5605 (“An Act Concerning Minor Revisions To The Workers' Compensation Act”) would remove obsolete language from the Workers' Compensation Act regarding the “Medicare resource-based relative value.”

S.B. No. 828 (“An Act Establishing A Working Group To Examine The Workers' Compensation Program”), would establish a working group to study the workers' compensation program (including addressing the issues of streamlining the program, and reducing both prior authorization delays and fraudulent claims). The group would, by January 1, 2026, issue a report with its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee.

Stay tuned for more.

Please contact any of Pullman & Comley's Labor and Employment Law attorneys should you have any questions.