With the General Assembly set to adjourn on May 6, 2026, several high‑impact workplace proposals remain in play that could reshape compliance programs and day‑to‑day operations for Connecticut employers. 

Many of these measures recycle past efforts, expand private litigation risk, and layer on new reporting and pay mandates. These challenges hit small and mid‑sized employers especially hard.

As floor calendars fill, HR leaders, in‑house counsel, and business owners should understand what these bills would require and plan for potential implementation. Here are some of the bills still on the table for consideration.

An Act Concerning the Limitation of Noncompete Agreements (HB 5492)

HB 5492 revisits years of debate over restrictive covenants, proposing sweeping limits on when noncompetes and exclusivity clauses may be used. In brief, the bill: bars noncompetes for employees earning less than two times the minimum wage and for independent contractors paid less than five times the minimum wage; confines permissible geographic scope to territories where the worker actually provided services or had a material presence in the prior two years; and voids restraints covering lines of work the employee did not perform in the two years before separation.

The bill also regulates exclusivity agreements, which prohibit employees from simultaneously working for another employer, contracting independently, or being self-employed. This creates compliance uncertainty for secondary employment policies.

The legislature has considered major noncompete reform on multiple prior occasions, reflecting a recurring policy priority to boost worker mobility. From a practical standpoint, employers should: tighten non‑disclosure, trade secret, and non‑solicitation protections; narrow any remaining noncompetes to demonstrably sensitive roles; and refresh templates to tie scope and geography to the employee’s actual duties and footprint over the past two years.

An Act Concerning Advanced Notice of an Employee’s Work Schedule by an Employer (SB 436)

SB 436 would establish predictive scheduling rules for retail, food service, and hospitality employers, as well as nursing assistants and orderlies in long‑term care. Under the bill, employers must: give a good‑faith written estimate of hours at hire; post schedules at least 14 days in advance; provide predictability pay when changing shifts without the required notice; honor minimum rest periods between shifts (such as at least 11 hours after a prior shift); and offer additional hours to existing employees before hiring externally.

The CBIA has highlighted the operational and cost pressures these mandates create, noting that weather, tourism, and seasonal demand already force frequent, legitimate scheduling changes and that additional layers of recordkeeping and premium‑pay rules can be duplicative and administratively complex. 

If SB 436 advances, employers should: assess workforce management systems for two‑week scheduling, change‑tracking, and premium‑pay calculations; formalize exception workflows for employee‑initiated changes; build “clopening” safeguards to meet rest‑period requirements; and implement documented processes to offer existing staff priority for added hours before tapping external candidates. Collective bargaining agreements and existing premium‑pay or overtime rules should be reviewed in parallel to avoid unintended stacking of penalties or wage‑hour exposure.

An Act Concerning Limitations on the Use of Nondisclosure Agreements (SB 355)

In the wake of #MeToo, lawmakers have repeatedly explored limits on nondisclosure and non‑disparagement terms, and SB 355 represents another attempt at this familiar topic. The bill would amend Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a‑60 to make it unlawful to refuse to hire an employee or independent contractor because they disclosed conduct they reasonably believe is a discriminatory employment practice. It would also prohibit requiring agreements that bar disclosure of reasonably believed discriminatory conduct. The bill further voids agreements restricting current or former employees or volunteers from discussing perceived discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and extends these limits to confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements. As with similar bills in prior years, this measure would likely represent one of the most sweeping NDA frameworks in the country, with broad retroactive effects and a new private right of action.

An Act Concerning Automated Decision Systems Protections for Employees (SB 435)

SB 435 targets “automated decision systems,” defined as computational tools that make or assist with employment decisions such as screening, ranking, scheduling, or performance analytics. The bill imposes pre‑deployment bias audits within the prior year, annual re‑evaluation, and reporting to the Labor Commissioner. In some respects, this approach mirrors what New York City has adopted. Where an audit shows disparate impact, use is barred unless the employer demonstrates business necessity and implements Commissioner‑approved corrective actions.

The bill also requires: notices to applicants describing the tool, its purpose, and the decision it informs; a right to opt out of personal data processing; and specified disclosures when an adverse action is taken with the assistance of an automated process.

Employers should: inventory all tools that use or influence employment decisions; engage vendors on audit support and explainability; prepare plain‑language notices; stand up governance for annual audits and corrective actions; and design fallback manual processes in case a tool must be paused. Algorithmic fairness and transparency remain an enduring policy focus, and Connecticut is poised to move ahead of many states on employment‑related AI oversight this session.

CBIA Bill Tracker: What’s Still Pending

As of this writing, the following CBIA‑tracked bills have cleared at least one committee and remain pending for floor action or further votes. Employers should monitor these closely, as many carry significant compliance, reporting, and litigation exposure if enacted.

• SB 355 (Nondisclosure Agreements): Awaiting action in the Senate.
• SB 356 (Certified Payroll/Daily Logs for Public Works): Awaiting action in the Senate.
• SB 358 (Retention of Service Contract Workers): Awaiting action in the Senate.
• SB 435 (Automated Decision Systems Protections for Employees): Awaiting action in the Senate; approved by the Labor and Public Employees Committee 9‑4.
• SB 436 (Advanced Notice of Work Schedules): Awaiting action in the Senate.
• SB 438 (Regulating Self‑Checkout Stations): Awaiting action in the Senate.
• SB 440 (Unemployment for Striking Workers): Awaiting action in the Senate.
• SB 515 (Workforce/Productivity Gap Surcharge): Awaiting action in the Senate.
• HB 5003 (Workforce Development and Working Conditions): Awaiting action on the House floor; CBIA reports the bill has continued to expand and carries significant, indeterminate costs and mandates across multiple sectors.
• HB 5275 (General Contractor Liability for Subcontractor Wages): Awaiting action in the House.
• HB 5279 (PTSI Coverage for Witnessing Serious Injury): Awaiting action in the House.
• HB 5280 (Shared Work Program, Noncharge During High Unemployment): Awaiting action in the House.
• HB 5386 (Paycheck Transparency): Awaiting action in the House.
• HB 5387 (Wage Range/Benefits Disclosures in Job Ads): Awaiting action in the House.
• HB 5388 (Fees for Medical Records in Disability Retirement): Awaiting action in the House.
• HB 5492 (Limitation of Noncompete Agreements): Awaiting action in the House.

For context, SB 298 (warehouse distribution centers) was enacted in an emergency bill vehicle, while several other measures remain in committee or have died this session. Additionally, multiple AI and data privacy measures outside the four bills discussed here, including SB 4, SB 5, SB 117, and SB 417, have also advanced and could be folded into broader packages before adjournment, adding to compliance complexity in data governance and algorithmic transparency.

Conclusion

With the May 6 adjournment approaching, now is the time to triage risk and prepare. Given the pace of session dynamics and the breadth of proposals still pending, employers should consult counsel to monitor developments, reconcile overlapping mandates with existing policies and collective bargaining agreements, and implement practical compliance strategies if these measures advance.