“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
This wry observation about government intervention has never seemed more applicable than in Connecticut’s current legislative climate.
Earlier this year, the “Connecticut Paid Sick Leave law” went into effect—which I previously posted about—and now the legislature aims to dramatically expand an employer’s liability for the actions of its employees.
Senate Bill 1442, backed by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), contains a provision that redefines “employer’s agent” in a manner that would dramatically increase the potential for employers to incur liability for the actions of an employee, which should alarm employers and employees alike.
The proposed definition states that an “employer’s agent” means an individual who is authorized by an employer to “(A) undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee, or (B) direct the employee’s daily work activities.”
Competing Interpretations Miss the Mark
Some have read the bill as imposing individual liability for managers under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA).
At a March 10, 2025, public hearing held by the Judiciary Committee discussing S.B. 1442, the CHRO’s current leadership insisted the proposed language merely brings state law in line with federal law regarding the meaning of “supervisor.”
Each of these interpretations is off the mark. An “agent” is a distinct concept from a “supervisor.” The concept of agency is a legal term denoting vicarious liability: an “agent” of the employer is standing in the employer’s shoes; as a result, the employer is liable for whatever its agent says and does.
The revisions in S.B. 1442 do not create individual liability, but will supplant the common law agency test for determining the situations where an employee can be considered the “employer’s agent.”
Removing the Guard Rails for Employer Liability
The term “employer’s agent” appears throughout CFEPA but is not specifically defined by statute under present law.
Under existing law, if a supervisor is acting against the employer’s wishes and the employer has no notice of the conduct, the employer’s remedial actions provide a defense against vicarious liability.
By providing a statutory definition, the legislature will remove all guardrails where agency liability would not have previously applied.
With this new proposed language, an employee may become an agent simply by having been “authorized” to engage in any supervisory oversight, increasing employers’ potential liability under CFEPA.
Consider an independent consultant directing company employees on a specific project or an employee training a newly hired peer for the role—under this new definition, the employer could face liability simply because these individuals have authority to “direct daily work activities,” eliminating any incentive for employers to conduct workplace investigations or discipline violators.
Preemptive Compliance Measures
What preemptive measures should Connecticut employers consider if S.B. 1442 becomes law?
To limit the number of employees considered “agents” under this definition, companies may first need to restructure and consolidate existing management structures, which may require layoffs impacting middle management.
Second, employers should implement comprehensive documentation systems and expand anti-discrimination training beyond management to include any employee who might direct the work of others, even temporarily or informally.
Third, businesses may need to reconsider bringing on independent contractors to give employees direction or training, enforce stricter barriers between employees and management, or eliminate valuable peer mentorship programs to limit potential liability exposure.
Final Thoughts
The broader pattern here should concern all Connecticut businesses.
S.B. 1442 continues a troubling trend of legislative intervention that fails to consider the practical implications for employers or the economic consequences for the state.
For the legislature, it is necessary to be cautious before tinkering with longstanding law and consider whether any such changes will lead to unintended results.
For employers, Connecticut’s business community would be well-advised to engage proactively with legislators to highlight these concerns before this bill advances further.
Finally, the public should consider whether a regulatory environment that makes it untenable for employers to operate without fear of civil liability or other legal exposure is truly beneficial to working individuals or the public interest.
My video testimony before the Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2025, on S.B. 1442 is available online via the recorded live stream, clipped and republished here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-bD68eqTro.