Lindsay Rinehart and Robert Brody of Brody and Associates.

It’s true the times have been a-changin’ for quite some time, and it’s likely 2019 will be yet another year of significant change for Connecticut. Here are some of the proposed bills pending in the state Legislature that could affect employers this year:

Proposed S.B. No. 1 — An Act Concerning Paid Family and Medical Leave

Proposed H.B. No. 5003 — An Act Implementing a Paid Family and Leave Program

These identical bills would establish a Paid Family and Medical Leave Program and Paid Family and Medical Leave Trust Fund. Under the bills, employees would be entitled to up to 12 workweeks of family and medical leave compensation at 100 percent of their wages over the course of a 12-month period. The Paid FMLA Trust Fund would be funded by employee contributions of one-half of a percent of payroll, which will begin to be collected on or before July 1, 2020. Covered employees would start receiving compensation under the act on and after July 1, 2021.

A public hearing was held on both bills on Feb. 14. On Feb. 19, the Joint Committee on Labor and Public Employees voted and gave the bills a “Joint Favorable Substitute” vote. Generally, if a committee finds a bill favorable and believes it should be taken up by the full General Assembly, it votes to give the bill a favorable report. If the committee is a joint committee comprising the House and Senate (as it is here) the vote is a joint favorable report. If the vote is a favorable report but with changes to the language, the vote is a joint favorable substitute. Therefore, these bills are headed up the hill with some changes we should expect to see shortly. Sometimes the substitute language is merely a minor, technical change and other times it's a complete rewriting of the bill. Only time will tell what the final product will look like and whether it ultimately will be signed into law.

Proposed H.B. No. 7043 — An Act Concerning Breastfeeding in the Workplace

This bill would amend Section 31-40w of the Connecticut General Statutes and require an employer to: (1) make reasonable efforts to provide a lactation room in the workplace which: (A) is private, free from intrusion and shielded from the public; (B) includes or is situated near a refrigerator where an employee can store express breast milk; and (C) includes access to an electrical outlet; and (2) provide breastfeeding support for up to three years from the date of the child's birth. A public hearing was held on the bill on Feb. 14 and on Feb. 19 was set to a vote to determine whether it should be fully drafted for consideration.

Proposed H.B. No. 6924 — An Act Prohibiting On-Call Shift Scheduling

This bill would amend the Connecticut General Statutes to prohibit employers from requiring an employee to call into work before a scheduled shift to confirm that the employee needs to work, and to require employers to give an employee at least 24 hours’ notice if the employee is not needed to work a scheduled shift. This bill is similar to a bill pending in New York State and one that passed in New York City in 2017.

A public hearing was held on the bill on Feb. 26 and on March 5 was set to a vote to determine whether it should be fully drafted for consideration.

Proposed H.B. No. 6921 — An Act Concerning Discrimination Based on a Person’s Criminal History

This bill would amend the Connecticut General Statutes to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public education and accommodations, insurance, credit transactions, government programs and services and economic development programs, based on a person's criminal history. There are many bills of this type popping up all over the country and we expect this one will likely come to fruition sooner rather than later. This seems to be where the country is heading. As of Jan. 1, 2017, Connecticut employers have been prohibited from including on an initial employment application questions about a prospective employee’s arrests, criminal charges, or convictions. A public hearing was held on the bill on Feb. 26 and on March 5 was set to a vote to determine whether it should be fully drafted for consideration.

Proposed S.B. No. 697 — An Act Concerning Nondisclosure Agreements in the Workplace

This bill would amend the Connecticut General Statutes to place restrictions on workplace nondisclosure agreements in an effort to prohibit forced silence of alleged victims of sexual harassment in the workplace and to prevent sexual harassment by repeat offenders. Considering the strength of the #MeToo movement, this is one bill that is likely to pass. A public hearing was held on the bill on Feb. 14. It has not yet been set for a vote.

 

Connecticut Capitol, Hartford. Photo by Michael Marciano

 

Proposed H.B. No. 6913 — An Act Concerning Covenants Not to Compete

This bill would amend the Connecticut General Statutes to prohibit employers from requiring certain employees from signing “unfair” covenants not to compete. The bill has not yet been fully drafted, and obviously, the definition of “unfair” will be a key issue. A public hearing was held on the bill on Feb. 14 and on Feb. 19 was set to a vote to determine whether it should be fully drafted for consideration.

Proposed H.B. No. 7044 — An Act Concerning Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

This bill would amend the Connecticut General Statutes to impose a duty on the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) to require employers that provide sexual harassment-related training to include information on the employer's policy regarding sexual harassment. Examples of the types of conduct that constitute sexual harassment, including the spectrum of different behaviors that constitute harassment (ranging from verbal harassment to sexual assault), must also be included. Finally, in the case of a sexual harassment complaint, employers would not be entitled to the following defenses (which currently are allowed): (A) the claim was properly investigated, immediate corrective action was taken and no act of harassment subsequently occurred; (B) the claim was not reported before the filing of a complaint with the commission; or (C) the employer has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment or recently trained its personnel on the meaning and effect of sexual harassment.

Finally, if an employer takes immediate corrective action, such corrective action cannot modify the terms and conditions of the alleged victim’s employment without the victim’s express, written agreement. The bill would also extend the deadline to file a complaint to 300 days after the alleged act. Currently, Connecticut law requires that a formal written complaint be filed with CHRO within 180 days of the date when the alleged harassment occurred. A public hearing on the bill was held March 5.

Keep your eye on these, employers. While these bills only make up about 20 percent of the bills pending in the Connecticut Legislature this year which might have some effect on employers and their businesses, these are the ones with the largest implications for employers. Some of these, if passed, will require employers to take significant actions. Make sure you are on the lookout for these developments.

Lindsay M. Rinehart is an associate and Robert. G. Brody is the founder and managing member of Brody and Associates in Westport.