CONNECTICUT'S NEW MANDATORY SICK LEAVE LAW

By Mark Santagata, Esq.

On July 1 Governor Malloy signed Public Act 11-52, a controversial bill that makes Connecticut the first state in the country to require employers to provide employees with paid sick leave. Although the new law, which takes effect January 1, 2012, is entitled "An Act Mandating Employers Provide Paid Sick Leave to Employees," it also gives employees paid time off for preventative medical care, to attend to the medical care of a child or spouse for physical or mental illness, to obtain victim's services if an employee is a victim of family violence or sexual assault, to relocate due to family violence or sexual assault, or to participate in civil or criminal proceedings related to family violence or sexual assault.

The law only applies to employers with fifty or more employees. Exempted from compliance are manufacturers classified in sector 31, 32 or 33 in the North American Industrial Classification System, which includes textile mills, apparel manufacturers, fabricated metal producers, and manufacturers of machinery, computers, and electronics. Also excluded are tax exempt organizations that simultaneously furnish recreation, childcare and education services.

The law requires covered employer to provide paid leave to their "service workers." Service workers are very broadly defined under criteria derived from federal labor standards, and include employees likely to be working in food services, and with the elderly and the infirm.

Sixty-eight occupational titles ranging from nurse anesthetists to fast food workers are listed in the statute as service workers. The occupational titles include such expansive classifications as counter clerks, retail salespersons, computer operators, secretaries and administrative assistants, miscellaneous office workers, and miscellaneous food processing workers.

Starting January 1, 2012 covered employees will begin to accrue paid leave at the rate of one hour for each forty hours worked. Workers can accrue up to a maximum of forty hours paid leave per calendar year, and can carryover up to forty unused hours of leave time from year to year. At the time of termination an employer is not required to pay an employee for accrued unused sick leave.

An employee must complete 680 hours of employment (equivalent to seventeen 40 hour work weeks) before he or she can use accrued sick leave. Paid sick leave is only available to an employee who worked an average of 10 or more hours a week during the most recently completed calendar quarter.

An employer can impose reasonable restrictions on an employee's use of the statutory leave. If the need to use the leave is foreseeable an employer can require advance notice not to exceed seven days. If advance notice isn't possible, the employer can require an employee to provide notice as soon as practicable. If an employee takes three or more consecutive days of leave, an employer can require documentation that the leave is being taken for a legitimate purpose.

An employee who abuses the sick leave benefits granted by the statute can be subject to disciplinary action. However, employers are prohibited from taking any retaliatory action against an employee for exercising their rights under the law. Employers subject to the act must give eligible employees notice of their entitlement to sick leave, and inform them of their ability to complain to the Labor Commissioner if their leave rights are violated. The Labor Commissioner can take enforcement action against an employer who violates the statute, including the imposition of fines.

Any program that provides employees with paid time off, such as paid vacation time, can be used to satisfy the requirements of Public Act 11-52, as long as the employee has access to the same leave benefits as are required by the statute.

Connecticut is at the cutting edge of a national issue. The impact of the Connecticut law is being watched closely by many who are advocating at the municipal, state and national level for passage of similar legislation, and by opponents who are concerned about the impact of such mandates in a struggling economy.