- within Finance and Banking topic(s)
Hartford, Conn. (December 31, 2025) - 2025 brought new developments to Connecticut labor and employment law. Changes have been made to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) as well as the Paid Sick Leave Law (CGS § 31-57r). The minimum wage in Connecticut has increased. Multiple impactful decisions were also issued this year by the Connecticut Appellate Court. An overview of these key updates is below.
I. Added CFEPA Protections for Human Trafficking and Sexual Assault Victims
The Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA)" was amended with "An Act Concerning . . . Human Trafficking and Sexual Assault Victims," which went into effect on October 1, 2025. The Act adds human trafficking and sexual assault victims as protected classes and prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based on their status as a victim of sexual assault or human trafficking. The Act also requires employers to provide victims of sexual assault with reasonable leave to seek attention for injuries caused by sexual assault or trafficking, access support services such as safety planning, obtain psychological counseling, take action to enhance safety, and/or secure legal services. Additionally, the Act obligates employers to maintain confidentiality regarding a victim's status pursuant to the Act.
II. Minimum Wage Updates
Effective January 1, 2026, Connecticut's minimum wage will increase from the current rate of $16.35 per hour, which went into effect on January 1, 2025, to the new rate of $16.94 per hour. Connecticut has the fourth highest minimum wage in the country.
III. Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Law
Connecticut amended its Paid Sick Leave Law (CGS § 31-57r) in 2025. The Law generally requires that covered employers provide at least 40 hours of paid sick time per year to their employees. Previously, the Law defined a "covered" employer as an employer with 50 or more employees. Effective January 1, 2025, the definition of a covered employer was expanded to include 25 or more employees. In 2026, covered employers will be defined as those with at least 11 employees, and, in 2027, that number will be reduced to 1. In addition to changes in what constitutes a "covered" employer, effective January 1, 2025, the types of employees covered by the Law were expanded to include all full- and part-time workers. The Law previously applied only to service workers.
Prior to 2025, the Law required one hour of paid sick time for every 40 hours worked. xAs of January 1, 2025, that number was reduced to one hour for every 30 hours worked, making it easier for employees to accrue time. The permissible reasons for using sick time were also expanded in 2025. Previously, paid sick time could be used only due to an illness or health condition, medical treatment, preventative care, or for mental health days. Those reasons were expanded to include closure of a child's school or employee's workplace due to public health emergency or if the employee or a family member posed a risk to the public due to exposure to a communicable illness. Employers are prohibited from retaliating or discriminating against an employee for using paid sick leave or filing a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging that the employer violated the law.
Moving into 2026, employers covered by the Law should ensure their sick policies and handbooks are updated to ensure compliance with these changes.
IV. Impactful Appellate Decisions
- Long v. Town of Putnam (AC 4641)
In the Connecticut Appellate Court case Cassie Long v. Town of Putnam (AC No. 4641), plaintiff Cassie Long ("Long") appealed a trial court's decision granting the defendant Town of Putnam's ("Putman") motion for summary judgment dismissing Long's complaint alleging pregnancy discrimination. Long argued that the trial court erred in its determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to her claims.
Putnam hired Long in June 2019 as an Assistant Finance Director, allegedly planning to eventually promote her to Finance Director. On her first day of work, she told Putnam she was pregnant. While she was on maternity leave, Putnam hired a new employee as Finance Director at a higher salary. When Long returned from maternity leave, her hours were cut and her pay decreased. She also lost access to bank accounts and department meetings. Putnam argued that Long was not reinstated to her prior role because she had failed to complete a required audit prior to taking leave.
In reversing the trial court's summary judgment decision, the Appellate Court focused on the timing, noting that shortly after Long began maternity leave, she was denied a promotion when Putnam hired another individual as Finance Director. Additionally, The Court found that Long presented evidence that her duties and position were fundamentally altered after she returned from leave. Lastly, the Court determined that the individual who was promoted to the Finance Director role had also failed to complete the audit as required. The Court found the evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Long was subjected to pregnancy discrimination. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Employers should be careful when making employment decisions to provide explanations for employment decisions that stand up to scrutiny and be wary of taking adverse action shortly after an employee engages in protected activity, takes leave, etc.
- Castelino v. Whitman, Breed, Abbott, & Morgan, LLC
(AC 47014)
In the Connecticut Appellate Court case involving plaintiff Marita Tammy Castelino ("Castelino"), Castelino appealed from the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant Whitman, Bred, Abbott, & Morgan, LLC ("Defendant"). Castelino sued for disability discrimination. Castelino argued that she was hired as an administrative assistant and was told her position would be "mostly" remote. Defendant denied her request to be fully remote after having some concerns about her potential COVID exposure at work and diagnoses of asthma and diabetes. She was terminated after about two months of employment due to her lack of attention to detail and lack of experience. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing her claims.
The Appellate Court affirmed. It concluded that a requested accommodation of fully remote work was not aligned with Castelino's role because several of her job functions required in-person work. For example, Castelino was responsible for maintaining physical files, scanning documents, notarizing documents for real estate closings, etc. The Court determined that if Castelino had been permitted the accommodation of full time remote work, essential job functions would effectively be eliminated.
In a post-COVID world, it can be difficult for employers to mandate in-office work, but clearly defining job functions can help to establish and enforce in-person requirements if there is a genuine need for the employee to perform some of their duties in the office.
V. CT Workers Compensation Act Updates
The Connecticut Workers Compensation Act was amended in 2025. For workers who were injured after July 1, 2025, the permanency benefits for injuries to the cervical spine increased from 117 weeks to 208 weeks. Additionally, workers are now able to collect permanency benefits for two new body systems: the esophagus (up to 180 weeks) and intestinal tract (up to 347 weeks).
Judges are also now required to award permanent disability benefits once a workers reaches maximum medical improvement (MMI). The prior option of continuing temporary partial disability benefits upon reaching MMI is no longer permitted. However, awarding temporary total disability benefits after claimants reach MMI is still permitted in cases where claimants continue to be totally disabled.
For death claims where the claimant did not leave behind any surviving spouse or dependent, the parents of the deceased claimant are entitled to receive benefits for a period of 312 weeks. Parents were not previously permitted to collect these benefits, as they have historically been limited to only spouses or dependents.
Lastly, workers who are unable to return to their usual job duties after being injured may now qualify for up to 60 additional weeks of benefits beyond their permanent disability awards so long as the worker in-question participates in a vocational rehabilitation program.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
