1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Connecticut to Become First State to Mandate Guaranteed Paid Sick-Leave Time for Employees

Connecticut to Become First State to Mandate Guaranteed Paid Sick-Leave Time for Employees

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.09.11

The Connecticut legislature has approved a landmark bill that will require many Connecticut employers that employ 50 or more people to provide up to 5 paid sick-leave days per year to their non-exempt and hourly staff, making Connecticut the first state in the country to pass such legislation. The bill is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Dannel Malloy and will go into effect on January 1, 2012.

The bill requires that covered employers provide sick leave to service workers, defined as employees who work in any of 68 occupational classifications specified in the legislation, including as security guards, janitors, office clerks, hair stylists, cooks, waiters, cashiers, retail salespersons, pharmacists, computer operators, among other classifications.

The bill does not require covered employers to provide paid sick leave to independent contractors, day or temporary workers or non-hourly employees such as salaried professionals. Also, the legislation exempts employers engaged in the manufacturing industry and most tax-exempt organizations.

Service workers will be permitted to use the accrued paid sick-leave time for their own or their immediate family member's illness, injury, or related treatment or to address issues arising from incidents of family violence or sexual assault. Importantly, employers already may be in compliance with the legislation if they offer another type of paid leave (such as vacation, PTO, or personal days) that can be used for the same purposes—and that accrues at least as quickly—as the paid leave time provided for in the bill. In such cases, the covered employer would not be required to provide the additional paid sick-leave time otherwise mandated by the legislation.

The bill permits anyone aggrieved by an alleged violation of the legislation to file a complaint with the State labor commissioner. It also prohibits employers from retaliating or discriminating against service workers who request or use paid sick leave as permitted by the bill. Remedies available to the labor commissioner include civil penalties, payment of back wages and reinstatement. Affected parties can appeal the labor commissioner's decision to the Superior Court.

Employers with operations in Connecticut would be prudent to review their current paid leave policies to determine whether they already comply with the new legislation, and, if not, to retool their policies accordingly.

Although Connecticut is poised to become the first state to mandate paid sick leave, several cities have passed ordinances with similar requirements, including in San Francisco, Milwaukee and the District of Columbia. Similar measures are currently pending in Philadelphia, Seattle, Denver, and New York City.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....