{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Global Employment Law Guide"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Harris Beach Murtha","Emily McDonough Souza"]
[]
[]
[]
["Global Employment Law Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Global Employment Law Guide","index":1,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","USA, Connecticut"]
["Lex Mundi Global Employment Law Guide"]
["What are the different categories of employment status (for example, employee, worker, self-employed individuals, etc)?","Connecticut recognizes the following categories of worker classifications: employees, independent contractors.\n"]
["Are there different types of employment contracts (for example, fixed-term, indefinite)?","Under Connecticut law, the default rule of employment-at-will can be modified by the agreement of the parties. Employment contracts may be express or implied. \nSee Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 234 Conn. 1, 13, 662 A.2d 89, 96 (1995).\n"]
["What requirements need to be met in order for an employment contract to be valid?","Whether express or implied, all employment agreements are subject to the traditional contract principles of offer, acceptance and consideration. \nSee Slifkin v. Condec Corp., 13 Conn. App. 538, 544, 538 A.2d 231, 234 (1988); \nGeary v. Wentworth Labs., Inc., 60 Conn. App. 622, 627, 760 A.2d 969, 972–73 (2000). Both express and implied employment contracts also depend on “actual agreement” by the parties. \nCoelho v. Posi-Seal Int'l, Inc., 208 Conn. 106, 111, 544 A.2d 170, 173 (1988). \"Certain material terms such as the duration, salary, fringe benefits and other conditions of employment are deemed essential to an \nemployment contract.\" Geary, 60 Conn. App. at 628.\n"]
["Are part-time employees afforded the same rights as full-time employees?","Connecticut law does not distinguish between part-time and full-time employees with respect to rights available under Connecticut private-sector employment laws.\n"]
["Can employment contracts be assigned?","Generally, under Connecticut law, employment contract rights or obligations are generally not assignable in the absence of an explicit assignability provision or the employee's consent to the assignment.\n"]
["What rights do employees have (to object, to severance), if any, when the company they work for is transferred as a going concern?","Connecticut law does not provide employees with a common law or statutory rights when the company they work for is transferred as a going concern.\n"]
["Do you have statutory rights for employees on change of control of an employer? If so, please give the statute.","Connecticut law does not provide employees with statutory rights on change of control of an employer.\n"]
["In what circumstances can employers unilaterally change the terms of employment, and what remedies (if any) are afforded to an employee?","Under Connecticut law, an employer may unilaterally change the terms of employment of an at-will employee. If an employment agreement exists between the parties, an employer may change the terms and conditions of employment pursuant to the terms of the agreement. \nSee Colebaugh v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc., No. CV156057999S, 2017 WL 3174293, at *19 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 12, 2017).\nWhen a collective bargaining agreement is in effect, implementing unilateral changes in the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees may be considered an unfair labor practice. \nSee Barbieri v. United Techs. Corp., 255 Conn. 708, 736, 771 A.2d 915, 933 (2001).\n"]
["Is your jurisdiction an employment-at-will jurisdiction? What are the employer’s termination rights?","Yes. \"\nIn Connecticut, an employer and employee have an at-will employment relationship in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Employment at will grants both parties the right to terminate the relationship for any reason, or no reason, at any time without fear of legal liability.\" \nThibodeau v. Design Grp. One Architects, LLC, 260 Conn. 691, 698, 802 A.2d 731, 735 (2002).\nThere are statutory and judicial limitations on an employer's termination rights. For example, civil service laws for state and municipal workers, and federal and state anti-discrimination laws limit the employment-at-will doctrine. \nSee, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(b).\n"]
["Are there remedies for dismissal without cause or wrongful termination?","Connecticut recognizes the tort of wrongful discharge. The tort of wrongful discharge permits an employee, whose employment is otherwise terminable at will, to bring a claim challenging the termination of his employment if the discharge “contravenes a clear mandate of public policy.” \nSheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 474, 427 A.2d 385, 386 (1980). However, the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy may not be brought when a plaintiff has an adequate statutory remedy. \nSee Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co., 952 F. Supp. 2d 396, 425 (D. Conn. 2013), on reconsideration (Sept. 23, 2013).\n"]
["Are there protections for whistleblowers?","The \nConnecticut Whistleblower Statute prohibits employers from disciplining, discharging or otherwise penalizing an employee because he reports violations or suspected violations of law to a public body, or because he participates in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by a public body, or court action. \nSee Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51m.\n"]
["Do employees have a right to privacy? If so, what are the remedies for a breach?","The tort of invasion of privacy has been applied in the employment context in Connecticut cases in each of its four varieties: unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; appropriation of the other's name or likeness; unreasonable publicity was given to the other's private life; and publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public. \nSee Tapia v. Sikorsky Aircraft Div. of United Techs. Corp., No. CV 95 32 77 61 S, 1998 WL 310872, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 3, 1998).\nUnder Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-48b, employers are prohibited from operating any surveillance device or system, including sound or voice recorders, closed circuit television cameras, or any combination of these methods, for the purposes of monitoring the activities of employees in any nonwork areas that are designed for the health or personal comfort of employees or for the safeguarding of their possessions. Connecticut law does provide for electronic monitoring by employers in certain circumstances, but only upon written notice to employees. \nSee Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-48d\n. Penalties include civil fines upon the employer. \nEmployees also have a right to online privacy. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-40x, employers may not: request or require that an applicant or employee give an employer his or her username and password, password, or any other means of authentication to access a personal online account; request or require that an applicant or employee access or authenticate a personal online account in the employer’s presence; or require an applicant or employee invite the employer or accept an invitation from the employer to join a group affiliated with any of the applicant’s or employee’s personal online accounts. The statute provides exceptions for accounts and devices the employer provides and certain types of investigations. It employees and applicants to file a complaint with the labor commissioner, who can impose civil penalties for violations.\nUnder Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-471, Connecticut employers have an affirmative obligation to safeguard the personal information of \nany person (not merely employees) that is in its possession from misuse by a third party. In order to comply with the statute, employers must create a privacy protection policy that protects the confidentiality of Social Security and other identifying numbers, prohibits unlawful disclosure, and limits access to that information, and the policy must be published or publicly displayed in the workplace. The statute imposes a civil penalty for willful violation.\n"]
["Are employees afforded any anti-discrimination protection?","Yes. The \nConnecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (\"\nCFEPA\") covers all employers with one or more employees. \nSee Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51\n et seq. Under \nCFEPA, employers may not discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, color, religious creed, age, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, disability, pregnancy, childbirth or a condition related to pregnancy or childbirth including lactation, genetic information, sexual orientation, veteran status, and victim of domestic violence status. \nSee Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(b)(1). In 2021, Connecticut expanded the definition of “race” to include traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles, such as braids, locs and twists.\n"]
["Are there statutory rights to vacation, medical leave and parental leave? Have there been any changes to leave benefits in the past 12 months? Is there any proposed legislation that employers should be aware of that will impact leave benefits?","There are no statutory rights to vacation leave.\nConnecticut law provides statutory rights to qualified medical leave. In addition to the federal \nFamily and Medical Leave Act, Connecticut has its own \nFamily and Medical Leave Act (\"\nCTFMLA\"), which applies to almost all employers with one or more employees, including the State of Connecticut, with a few exceptions. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51kk \net seq. CTFMLA offers unpaid, job-protected leave to covered employees if they have been employed by the employer for at least 3 consecutive months. Eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of leave (with an additional two weeks of leave for incapacitation due to pregnancy) in a 12-month period for any of the following reasons: \n·       The birth of a child and care for the child within the first year after birth;·       The placement of a child with you by adoption or foster care arrangement and care for the child;·       To care for any of the following family members with a serious health condition:o   A spouse;o   A child;o   A parent or parent-in-law;o   A sibling;o   A grandparent;o   A grandchild; oro   Any person related to you by blood or affinity who has a close association to you, equivalent to a family relationship.·       Your own serious health condition.·       To serve as an organ or bone marrow donor.·       A qualifying exigency arising from the fact that your spouse, child or parent is on active duty in the armed forces; or·       To care for a spouse, child, parent or next of kin with a serious injury or illness incurred on active duty in the armed forces.Employees who are eligible for leave under the \nCTFMLA may also be eligible for up to 12 weeks of paid leave in a 12-month period through income replacement benefits under the \nConnecticut Paid Leave Act (\"\nCTPL\"). \nTo qualify for benefits under CTPL, employees must meet the minimum wage threshold set by statute, as determined by the Connecticut Paid Leave Authority.  "]
["Are restrictive covenants recognized and, if so, what are reasonable restrictions as to geography, duration and scope of activity?","Connecticut courts recognize the enforceability of restrictive covenants. S\nee Robert S. Weiss & Assocs., Inc. v. Wiederlight, 208 Conn. 525 (1988); S\ncott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).\nIn determining the validity and enforceability of a covenant not to compete, the court will consider five factors: (1) the length of time the restriction operates; (2) the geographic area covered; (3) the fairness of the protection accorded to the employer; (4) the extent of the restraint on the employee's opportunity to pursue his occupation; and (5) the extent of interference with the public's interests. \nSee New Haven Tobacco Co. v. Perrelli, 11 Conn. App. 636, 639, 528 A.2d 865, 867 (1987).\n\"[T]ime and geographical restrictions are to be reviewed as intertwined considerations when a determination is made on the reasonableness of the limitations of an employee's post-termination activities.” For example, a restriction covering a large area might be reasonable if in effect for a brief time, while a restriction covering a small area might be reasonable for a longer time. \nSee Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Supp. 191, 197, 648 A.2d 898, 902 (Super. Ct. 1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994). Therefore, courts evaluate time and geographical restrictions on a case-by-case basis, enforcing those that are reasonable in that particular situation while invalidating those that are not.\n"]
["Can employees be terminated for refusing to sign a restrictive covenant? What serves as consideration for a restrictive covenant?","If an individual is an at-will employee, failure to sign a non-compete agreement may be grounds for termination. \nSee Warren Tricomi Greenwich, Inc. v. Arpell, No. FSTCV146021411S, 2014 WL 4290609, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 17, 2014).\nFor an employment agreement to be enforceable, it must be supported by adequate consideration.  In determining whether the covenant is supported by adequate consideration, courts assess the nature of the consideration at the time of the signing of the covenant. \nMinnesota Mining And Mfg. Co. v. Francavilla, 191 F. Supp. 2d 270, 279 (D. Conn. 2002). Courts generally examine the adequacy of consideration in three contexts: (a) new employment, which is recognized to be adequate consideration; (b) changes in the terms or conditions of employment after the employment relationship has begun; which will constitute adequate consideration in most circumstances, or (c) the mere continuation of employment, which courts are split on whether it is sufficient. \nSee Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola, 43 Conn. Supp. 191, 196, 648 A.2d 898, 901 (Super. Ct. 1993), aff'd, 231 Conn. 272, 648 A.2d 877 (1994); \nHoffnagle v. Henderson, No. CV020813972S, 2003 WL 21150549, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2003), on reconsideration in part, No. CV020813972, 2003 WL 22206236 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 10, 2003); \nMacDermid, Inc. v. Raymond Selle & Cookson Grp. PLC, 535 F. Supp. 2d 308, 316 (D. Conn. 2008).\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction require contributions to a pension or retirement scheme?","Connecticut law requires qualified private employers, without their own workplace-based retirement plans, to enroll employees in individual retirement arrangements sponsored by the state. \nSee Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-416\n et seq."]
["Are certain benefits mandated by your jurisdiction?","Employees who are eligible for leave under the \nCTFMLA (see above response) may also be eligible for up to 12 weeks of paid leave in a 12-month period through income replacement benefits under the \nConnecticut Paid Leave Act (\"\nCTPL\"). \nTo qualify for benefits under CTPL, employees must meet the minimum wage threshold set by statute, as determined by the Connecticut Paid Leave Authority. Connecticut also has a Paid Sick Leave law that requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide paid sick leave to in-state \"service workers.\" Under the law, a service worker accrues one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked up to a maximum of 40 hours per year. Each service worker is entitled to carry over up to forty unused accrued hours of paid sick leave from the current year to the following year.\n"]
["Is it permitted to have a mandatory retirement age in your jurisdiction?","Mandatory retirement age is likely to be deemed in violation of Conn. Gen. Statute § 46a-60(b)(1). However, narrow exceptions to this rule can be found under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(c)(1). For example, Connecticut allows employers to mandate the retirement of their employees because of their age, provided those employees meet three criteria: (1) the employee is 65 or older, (2) the employee is entitled to collect a retirement benefit of at least $44,000 annually, and (3) the employee was employed in a “bona fide executive” or “high policymaking” position for the two years immediately prior to retirement. \nSee Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a–60(c)(1)(B).\n"]
["Is it possible to cease pension or insured benefits (income continuance/disability insurance, healthcare, life assurance, etc.) when work continues beyond retirement age?","Other than set forth above, employers cannot mandate a retirement age in Connecticut. The statute that permits a mandatory retirement age under limited circumstances does not address the cessation of benefits. Any other cessation of benefits based on age would violate Connecticut law. \nSee Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(b)(1), Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-60(c)(2); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(c)(1)(E).\n"]
["Can an employer make the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for its employees? Are there exceptions that an employer must make? If an employee simply does not want to get the vaccine (without another reason like disability or religious reason), can an employer terminate the employee’s employment?","A Connecticut employer can mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. The employer must consider reasonable accommodations on the basis of religion or disability (medical condition). There is no statutory or other prohibition for an employer to terminate the employee if the employee refuses to be vaccinated for other reasons.\n"]
["Can an employer require that employees return to work in the office (absent government order to shut down)? If an employee refuses to return to the office, can the employer terminate the employee’s employment?","Connecticut employers can require employees to return to work and can terminate them if they refuse to do so unless the employee is requested a reasonable accommodation to work remotely under the \nADA and/or Connecticut law, in which case the employer must engage in the interactive process to determine if the accommodation can be granted. Pregnancy-related medical conditions also require reasonable accommodation under Connecticut law.\n"]