Expanding the Connecticut Paid Sick Day Law and banning non-disclosure clauses in settlement agreements are among the host of new workplace mandates being proposed in the General Assembly. We provide a brief rundown of those bills below:
Three Paid Sick Day Bills
There are three bills pending that would dramatically expand Connecticut’s sick day law. Current law requires employers with 50 or more employees to give “service workers” one (1) hour of sick leave for every 40 hours worked, up to 40 hours per year. The law permits sick leave for the employee’s own condition or to care for a spouse or child. Employees can begin using sick leave after 680 hours of employment. Manufacturing and YMCAs are exempt from the law. The highlights of the bills under consideration follow:
S.B. No. 7
· Applicable to employers with 1 or more employees.
· Eliminates exemption for manufacturing and YMCAs.
· Adds exemption for construction firms who contribute to multiemployer health plans subject to collective bargaining agreement.
· Covers all employees, not just service workers.
· Accrual of 1 hour for every 30 hours worked.
· Employees may begin using sick time on 100th day of employment.
· Expands to include care for sibling, grandparent, grandchild.
H.B. No. 5166
Applicable to employers with 25 or more employees (Jan. 1, 2024), 11 or more employees (Jan. 1, 2026) and 1 or more employees (Jan. 1, 2027).
This bill, if passed:
· Eliminates exemption for manufacturing and YMCAs.
· Adds exemption for construction firms who contribute to multiemployer health plans subject to collective bargaining agreement.
· Covers all employees, not just service workers.
· Accrual of 1 hour for every 40 hours worked.
· Employees may begin using sick leave immediately.
· Expands to include care for sibling, grandparent, grandchild.
S.B. No. 12
· Applicable to employers with 1 or more employees.
· Eliminates exemption for manufacturing and YMCAs.
· Adds exemption or construction firms who contribute to multiemployer health plan subject to collective bargaining agreement.
· Covers all employees, not just service workers.
· Accrual of 1 hour for every 30 hours worked.
· Employees may begin using sick leave immediately.
· Expands to include care for sibling, grandparent, grandchild.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Bills Prohibiting Non-Disclosure/Non-Disparagement Agreements Concerning Legally Impermissible Conduct
Two bills have been introduced that would ban the use of non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses covering “legally impermissible conduct” at the workplace and work-related events.
The bills would ban their use in employment agreements and agreements pursuant to a release of claims. They are:
S.B. No. 361 (Eff. Oct. 1, 2024 if passed)
· Prohibits non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreements concerning “legally impermissible conduct at the workplace and work-related events.” E.g.:
· Discrimination
· Harassment
· Retaliation directed at an employee or volunteer;
· Wage and hour violations;
· Sexual assault, or
· Any other conduct that is recognized as against a clear mandate of public policy.
· Prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for discussing legally impermissible conduct.
· Applies to all agreements, including employment agreements and agreements in exchange for release of claims.
· Does not prohibit non-disclosure clauses related to protecting trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential information that does not involve illegal acts.
· Damages in civil action for violations: Actual damages or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is greater, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.
S.B. No. 4 (Eff. Oct. 1, 2024 if passed)
· Would prohibit employer from taking adverse action against applicant or employee because they disclosed conduct the employee reasonably believes is discriminatory or because employee disparaged employer for conduct reasonably believes to be discriminatory.
· Prohibits employer from requiring employee to enter into non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreement.
· Prohibits employer from enforcing agreement.
· Damages in civil action for violations: Actual damages or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is greater, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Notice for Changes to PTO Policy
H.B. No. 5468 would require employers to give 12 months’ notice to their employees prior to making changes to their policies on payment for unused, accrued PTO.
Reducing Time Limit for Employers to Protest Unemployment Charges
H.B. 5266 would reduce the deadline employers have to contest improper charges to their unemployment account from 60 days to 40 days after the quarterly employment is provided to the employer.
The bill also requires the appeal to be in writing and to set forth the reasons the charge is believed to be in error. If passed, the bill would be effective October 1, 2024.
Tougher New Federal Independent Contractor Test in Effect
Classifying workers as independent contractors is more difficult under a new U.S. DOL test that took effect yesterday. The new rule replaces a less demanding independent contractor test with a more stringent six factor test.
The DOL, which has claimed in the past that worker misclassification is rampant, commented on the need for the new rule: “The misclassification of employees as independent contractors may deny workers minimum wage, overtime pay, and other protections. This final rule will reduce the risk that employees are misclassified as independent contractors while providing a consistent approach for businesses that engage with individuals who are in business for themselves.”
Under the new rule, six factors will be used to determine if an individual is properly classified as an independent contractor:
· The degree to which the employer controls how the work is done.
· The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss.
· The amount of skill and initiative required for the work.
· The degree of permanence of the working relationship.
· The worker’s investment in equipment or materials required for the task.
· The extent to which the service rendered is an integral part of the employer’s business.
The rule faces at least four lawsuits alleging the regulation is illegal and a resolution has been raised in the House of Representatives to overturn the rule.
“Employers who use independent contractors should take a close look at these factors” suggested Attorney Padric F.S. Noonan. “The cases against Uber and the actions taken in response to those cases in Washington, New York and California have brought the question of worker classification into the forefront.”
He added, “Keep in mind that Connecticut has its own test for independent contractor status. Our clients need to take a close look at both the new federal test and Connecticut’s current ABC test before engaging someone as an independent contractor.”
Editor’s Note: We will be holding a webinar, What Every HR Manager and Business Owner Needs to Know About Lawsuits on March 26, 2024 from 9:00-11:30 a.m.
To register, visit our website to enroll at robertnoonan@robertnoonan.com, or contact Jessenia Narvaez, Office Manager, at jessenianarvaez@robertnoonan.com or (860) 349-7010.
Comments