Two major legislative amendments to Connecticut’s employment statutes go into effect on October 1, 2021, both of which involve employers’ hiring practices.

The first amendment, in Public Act 21-69 entitled “An Act Deterring Age Discrimination In Employment Applications,” reflects a new basis for protecting against age-related discrimination. The amendment to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(b)(12), makes it a discriminatory practice for an employer with two or more employees (or an employer’s agent) to inquire about certain age-related information on initial employment applications. Specifically, employers will now be prohibited from asking or requiring a prospective employee to provide his/her age, date of birth, or dates of attendance at or graduation from any educational institution on an initial application. Two specific exceptions apply:(i) if such age-related information is a bona fide occupational qualification for the position, or (ii) if such information is required for the employer to comply with any state or federal laws. Note that, because the new amendment specifically refers to “initial employment applications,” the restriction on requiring such information does not appear to apply to subsequent forms related to employment or subsequent inquiries during the hiring process.

The second amendment, in Public Act 21-30 entitled “An Act Concerning the Disclosure of Salary Range for a Vacant Position,” expands on Connecticut’s existing “Pay Equity” laws. Under the new provisions in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-40z(b)(8) and (9), employers with one or more employees are prohibited from failing or refusing to provide (i) a job applicant with wage range information for a position sought by the applicant upon the earlier of the applicant’s request or prior to or at the time an offer of compensation is made by the employer, or (ii) an employee with wage range information for the employee’s position, either upon hiring the employee, on a change in the employee’s position, or at the employee’s first request for such information. The wage information that must be disclosed under these provisions is specifically defined to include “the range of wages an employer anticipates relying on when setting wages for a position, and may include reference to any applicable pay scale, previously determined range of wages for the position, actual range of wages for those employees currently holding comparable positions or the employer’s budgeted amount for the position.”  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-40z(a)(4). An employer must accordingly provide wage range information to any new applicants, and must also provide such information to existing employees if any of the three criteria are met. The new provisions do not require an employer to disclose another employee’s wages.

We strongly recommend that employers immediately review and revise job postings and applications to comply with these new laws by eliminating any request for age-related information (unless an exception applies) and by including lines for providing compliant wage-range information. Employers should train HR personnel on what can and cannot be asked of job applicants. Employers should also be prepared to address inquiries from existing employees who seek information on wage ranges for specific positions.

Murtha Cullina’s attorneys are available to answer any specific questions about these new laws and to provide guidance in complying with them.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Lorey Rives Leddy Lorey Rives Leddy

Lorey Rives Leddy is a member of the Litigation Department and the Appellate Practice Group.

She has over 30 years of trial and appellate experience representing both corporate, municipal and individual clients in a variety of matters in both state and federal courts…

Lorey Rives Leddy is a member of the Litigation Department and the Appellate Practice Group.

She has over 30 years of trial and appellate experience representing both corporate, municipal and individual clients in a variety of matters in both state and federal courts in Connecticut and New York, including general commercial disputes, creditor’s rights cases, complex contract matters, construction cases, patent and trademark litigation, employment defense, and trusts and estates litigation. Lorey has extensive trial experience, conducting and second-chairing dozens of bench and jury trials, as well as arbitrations and mediations, in all of these practice areas. She has represented municipalities in various disputes, and she has handled administrative appeals for corporate clients.  She has also written numerous successful pre-trial motions and appellate briefs.

A sample of the disputes Lorey has handled includes:

  • Corporate and partnership dissolutions and disputes;
  • Employment discrimination claims;
  • ADA compliance and discrimination claims;
  • Trademark infringement claims;
  • Unfair trade practices, misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference claims;
  • Commercial construction disputes;
  • First Amendment claims;
  • Enforcement of non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements;
  • Post-judgment enforcement proceedings;
  • Toxic torts defense;
  • Environmental enforcement actions and disputes;
  • Land disputes; and
  • Administrative appeals before the Department of Social Services and Department of Transportation.

Lorey is also actively involved in providing pro bono representation to current and former inmates through the federal re-entry program, sponsored by the district judges in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and through Volunteers of Legal Service’s Incarcerated Mothers Project.  Most recently, Lorey successfully moved for class certification in a federal Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit challenging living conditions at a Connecticut prison.

Upon graduating from law school, Lorey began practicing law in New York City with the firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, where she had been a summer associate in 1988.  In 1993, she joined the Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Division, in New York City, where she represented children in family and delinquency proceedings.  She moved back to private practice in 1998, joining the firm of Day, Berry & Howard, LLP (now Day Pitney) in Stamford, Connecticut, before opting to work part-time to raise her three children.  She returned to the full-time practice of law in 2011 with O’Rourke & Associates, LLP, joining Murtha Cullina in 2017.

Lorey also runs Murtha Cullina’s litigation training program for associates.  She has served on her town’s Advisory Committee for the Disabled since 2010, and was appointed Chairperson of the Committee in 2019.