Articles about Connecticut Labor and Employment Law.

On May 19, 2015, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed into law a new statute restricting an employer’s ability to gain access to social media, e-mail and other personal online accounts of employees and job applicants. Connecticut is the twentieth state to enact such legislation. Connecticut’s law generally is in line with similar state laws, having no outlier provisions that could pose a particular compliance challenge for multistate employers.

Connecticut has become the 21st state to enact a law limiting an employer’s ability to access the personal social media accounts of job applicants and employees. The new law (Public Act 15-6), signed by Governor Dannel P. Malloy on May 19, 2015, will become effective on October 1, 2015, and applies to all private and public employers, regardless of size.

On Friday, July 12, 2013, Connecticut’s Governor Dannel P. Malloy vetoed a bill that would have restricted the use of non-compete agreements in the context of mergers and acquisitions. The proposed bill, “An Act Concerning Employer Use of Noncompete Agreements,” Public Act No. 13-309 (the Act), would have voided non-compete agreements entered into, renewed, or extended when the agreement followed an acquisition or merger unless the employer provided the employee with a “reasonable period of time” (at least seven calendar days) to consider the non-compete agreement.

The Connecticut Personnel Files Act gives employees in the state the right to inspect their personnel files. Governor Dannel Malloy has signed into law significant amendments to the Act that become effective October 1, 2013. Senate Bill 910 creates a distinction between current and former employees and expedites the time and manner in which both current and former employees are allowed access to their personnel files. Additionally, written disciplinary action carries with it added requirements. Significant changes are discussed below.

On the final day of the most recent Connecticut legislative session, the General Assembly passed a bill titled “An Act Concerning Employer Use of Noncompete Agreements” (the Act). Despite the broadly worded title, the ostensibly narrow focus of the Act is to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in the context of mergers and acquisitions. Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed the Act into law on June 24, 2013. The new law, Public Act No. 13-309, will take effect on October 1, 2013.

Connecticut has added several burdensome obligations to state statutes that give employees the right to inspect, copy and rebut their personnel files. At the urging of legal aid lawyers and other employee advocates, the legislature passed Public Act No. 13-176 (the Act) despite strong opposition from organizations representing businesses. The Act amends Connecticut’s Personnel Files Act,1 which has been in effect since 1980. Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed the Act into law on June 21, 2013. The new amendments will take effect on October 1, 2013.

Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy has signed two laws expanding benefits and protections to veterans. The first would reinstate eligibility for state benefits to any veterans discharged from the armed services, regardless of discharge classification, who were denied benefits solely based on their sexual orientation (Pub. Act 13-48). The second would revise current military leave protections to employees who are members of the state armed forces who take time from their employment to perform ordered military duty (Pub. Act 13-49). The laws become effective on October 1, 2013.

In Connecticut, a private employer’s right to discipline an employee for speech made within the scope of his employment and as part of his official duties was established when the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc., 43 A.3d 111, 304 Conn. 585 (Conn. 2012). In Schumann, the Connecticut Supreme Court applied to the private sector the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S 410 (2006), which applied to public employers. In Garcetti, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employee speech that related to his or her job duties was not protected by the First Amendment.

In a much-anticipated ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that employers in Connecticut are not subject to the provisions of the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act unless they employ at least 75 employees within the state. Velez v. Commissioner of Labor, et al., Nos. SC 18683 & 18684 (Sept. 25, 2012). The decision has broad implications for employers in Connecticut.

A Connecticut state court recently found non-compete/non-solicitation agreements unreasonable and therefore unenforceable because the agreements did not protect any legitimate business interest. Creative Dimensions, Inc. v. Laberge is an unusual case in that the court found the agreements were reasonable in terms of their geographical and temporal restrictions, but nevertheless invalidated the agreements because they were inherently unfair to the employee-defendants. In reaching this conclusion, the court balanced the employee-defendants’ inability to work for 18 months against the employer’s failure to identify a protectable interest justifying the 18-month restriction.