Working Together

We have written about the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee’s final flurry of activity approving and advancing bills out of committee.  [LINKS TO PART ONE AND PART TWO] In addition to the bills that we have already summarized, here is a brief summary of other bills approved by the Committee (and which now await action by the full General Assembly). 

HERE WE GO AGAIN: NON-COMPETES

H.B. No. 7196 (“An Act Concerning Limitations On The Use Of Noncompete Agreements”) is similar in many ways to prior bills that did not pass. This bill would protect both employees and independent contractors (i.e., “workers”) and would mandate that a covenant not to compete entered into, renewed, or extended is permissible only if: 1) it does not restrict the worker's competitive activities for more than one year following termination; 2) it is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer that could not be protected through less restrictive means (e.g., non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreements, or the Uniform Trade Secrets’ Act protections); 3) it is no more restrictive than necessary to protect such business interests in terms of duration, geographic scope, type of work and type of employer; 4) the worker is an exempt employee (i.e., a salaried employee not entitled to overtime pay); 5) the employment or contractual relationship was not terminated by the worker for good cause solely attributable to the employer or contractor;  6) the worker is not required to submit to an adjudication outside of the state; and 7) the covenant is otherwise consistent with the public interest, the law of this state “and public policy.”  In addition to the limitation to exempt employees, covenants not to compete would NOT be enforceable against: 1) employees who receive compensation at less than three times the minimum wage; or 2) independent contractors whose monetary compensation is less than five times the minimum wage.

The bill also provides that each covenant not to compete shall: 1) be provided to the employee not less than ten business days prior to the date of signing or the deadline for signing, whichever is earlier; 2) contain a statement of the employee’s rights (including the right to consult with counsel prior to signing); 3) be supported by sufficient consideration independent from continuation of the employment or contractor relationship, if the agreement is added to an existing employment or independent contractor relationship; and 4) be signed by both the employee and the employer.

Even if all the above conditions are met, a noncompete agreement is presumed unenforceable if it applies to: 1) geographic areas in which the employee neither provided services nor had a material presence or influence within the last two years of employment; or 2) types of work that the employee did not perform during the last two years of employment. The bill provides that a covenant not to compete that otherwise conforms in all respects to these new requirements shall not be invalid based upon its duration of more than one year (but not longer than two years) following the termination if it is a part of an employment agreement or a separation agreement under which the employer agrees to continue to compensate the employee with (at least) the employee's base salary and benefits for at least one year following the termination. 

The bill excludes from the definition of covered non-compete agreements: non-solicitation agreements (provided that such agreements are not longer than one year in duration and are no more restrictive than necessary to protect business interests in terms of duration, geographic scope, type of work and type of employer), non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements, agreements not to reapply to the same employer, and any agreement made in anticipation of a sale of the goodwill of a business or all of the seller’s ownership interest in a business or as part of a partnership or ownership agreement.

This bill has a separate provision with respect to “exclusivity agreements,” which are defined as contracts, provisions, or agreements that restrain a worker from (or impose a penalty on a worker for) being simultaneously employed by another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed. Specifically, no employer or contractor may request or require that a worker sign such an exclusivity agreement unless the worker is: 1) an exempt employee who receives compensation more than three times the minimum wage; or 2) an independent contractor whose monetary compensation is more than five times the minimum wage. However, an employer or contractor may request or require a worker to sign an exclusivity agreement if the worker's additional employment, work as an independent contractor, or being self-employed would: 1) imperil the safety of the worker, the worker's coworkers, or the public; or 2) substantially interfere with the reasonable and normal scheduling expectations for the worker, provided that on-call shift scheduling shall not be considered a reasonable scheduling expectation for the purposes of this bill.

The bill would permit a worker (and would authorize the Attorney General on a worker’s behalf) to bring a civil action in Superior Court for any violation of its provisions.  The bill provides that the party seeking to enforce a covenant not to compete or exclusivity agreement would have the burden of proof in any proceeding. The remaining provisions of any contract or agreement that includes a covenant not to compete or exclusivity agreement that is rendered void and unenforceable would remain in full force and effect, including provisions requiring the payment of damages resulting from any injury suffered by reason of termination of such contract or agreement. 

STATE EMPLOYEES

H.B. No. 6906 (“An Act Concerning The Labor Department”) would require the Commissioner of Administrative Services to develop and implement policies and procedures in order to give preference in hiring to federal employees who were laid off or retired from federal service on or after January 1, 2025 (and to consider such individual's years in federal service when deciding such individual's classification and pay grade, should they be employed by the State).  The bill would also require the Commissioner of Labor to (within available appropriations) organize and hold a job fair for such laid off/retired federal employees.  The bill would require the University of Connecticut and the Connecticut State University System to (within available appropriations) to develop a job portal with positions for applicants who, on or before January 1, 2025, were previously employed by a higher education institution in the United States to perform federally funded research.

H.B. No. 7047 (“An Act Requiring Automatic Postings Of Certain State Jobs”) would require an appointing authority to post a job advertisement within ten days of a vacancy occurring for any position not appointed by the Governor or a member of the General Assembly, that is within the Departments of Public Health, Children and Families, Mental Health and Addiction Services, Revenue Services, Corrections or Labor, or is a teaching position within the Technical Education and Career System.

S.B. No. 1220 (“An Act Concerning Health Benefits For State Marshals”) would allow state marshals who work at least 20 hours per week on average and are engaged in the service of 1) process for indigent parties who have the cost of serving process waived, 2) protection orders for victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse or  assault, or stalking, or 3) civil arrest warrants issued by family support magistrates, to participate in the state employees’ health insurance plan on the same terms as other active state employees.

H.B. No. 6413 (“An Act Requiring Uninsured And Underinsured Motorist Coverage For Department Of Transportation Employees”) would require the Department of Transportation to provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under the State Fleet Insurance Policy, with limits for bodily injury or death not less than one million dollars, to employees of the Department.

MISCELLANEOUS

S.B. No. 1426 (“An Act Making Changes To The Firefighters Cancer Relief Program”) would make various revisions to the Firefighters Cancer Relief Program, which provides benefits similar to workers’ compensation benefits to firefighters who have certain cancers by, among other things, 1)  expanding the listing of cancers covered by the Program to include skin cancer, 2) clarifying the eligible criteria so as to ensure that the five years of qualifying employment time can include any combination of employment in the covered positions, 3) clarifying that state-employed firefighters could apply for benefits thought the state (with the state then administering the claim and benefits), 4) requiring Program benefits  be provided in the same way they would be if the firefighter’s cancer had been caused by an occupational disease (rather than a personal injury) under the workers’ compensation statute, and 5) explicitly authorizing workers’ compensation administrative law judges to hear a firefighter’s appeal of a denial of benefits from the Program.

S.B. No. 525 (“An Act Concerning The Selection Of Contractors For Public Works Projects”) would require the state to give preference to in-state manufacturers, fabricators and erectors (and if no such in-state entity is available, to an entity located in the United States).

S.B. No. 1037 (“An Act Increasing The Per Diem Rate For Members Of The State Board Of Labor Relations And Compensation For Members Of The Board Of Mediation And Arbitration”) would increase the per diem rate for regular and alternate members of the State Board of Labor Relations from $150 to $300 per day. It would also increase the compensation that State Board of Mediation and Arbitration members receive.

S.B. No. 1428 (“An Act Appropriating Funds For The Domestic Workers Education And Training Grants Program”) would provide funds for the domestic workers education and training grants program.

H.B. No. 5704 (“An Act Creating A Construction Pipeline Program”) would establish a working group to study and make recommendations concerning developing a construction workforce pipeline program to train students and workers for job placement with employers in the skilled trades.  The group would then issue a report with its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee by December 31, 2025.

H.B. No. 6956 (“An Act Concerning Youth Employment And Training Funds”) would update the allocation methodology governing the distribution of the Connecticut Youth Employment Program funds to the workforce development boards by requiring that funds be allocated based on the percentage of disadvantaged youth in each workforce development region. 

H.B. No. 7045 (“An Act Concerning The Legislative Commissioners' Recommendations For Minor And Technical Revisions To Statutes Concerning Labor”) would, as the title suggests, make technical revisions to statutes concerning labor.

FINALLY, MORE “STUDIES”

S.B. No. 1274 (“An Act Concerning Working Conditions”) would require the Commissioner of Labor to conduct a study on working conditions in the state, and to issue a report (which may include recommendations for legislation) by January 1, 2026 to the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee. (Note:  this would seem to be a placeholder bill.)

S.B. No. 1275 (“An Act Concerning Workers’ Rights”) would require the Commissioner of Labor to conduct a study of the rights of employees in the state, and to issue a report (which may include recommendations for legislation) by January 1, 2026 to the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee. (Note:  this would also seem to be a placeholder bill.)

***

Bills affecting labor and employment issues may also emerge from other committees (such as the Judiciary Committee and the Planning and Development Committee).  The 2025 regular session of the General Assembly is scheduled to adjourn on June 4, 2025, so stay tuned to see if any of these bills are eventually enacted.

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