Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Discrimination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CHRO, employers and business groups debate expanding "employer's agent" definition and process changes
Summary
The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and business groups clashed at a hearing over bipartisan draft changes that would expand who counts as an employer's agent and clarify CHRO timing and process rules; CHRO leaders said the change corrects a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that narrowed vicarious-liability interpretation.
Hartford ' The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) urged lawmakers to pass SB 1442 to broaden the statutory definition of "employer's agent" and to clarify several CHRO procedural time limits, while business groups and some legislators raised concerns about expanded liability.
Tanya Hughes, executive director of CHRO, told the panel the measure amends Connecticut General Statutes Section 46a-51 to reinstate CHRO's prior interpretation of vicarious liability: supervisors who direct day-to-day work should be considered employer agents even if they cannot hire or fire. "Sticking with the more narrow federal definition of supervisor would allow employers to avoid vicarious liability even when a superior has this sort of control over an employee's daily work," Hughes said.
Michelle Dumas Cuellar, a managing director of legal operations at CHRO, explained the change follows a 2024 Connecticut Supreme Court decision that adopted a narrower federal standard. "Prior to this, we were interpreting it that any level manager who committed the discriminatory act would then make their owner...vicariously liable," she told the committee, arguing the statutory change would restore the agency's historical enforcement reach.
Opponents, including business counsel and trade groups, warned the proposed statutory language could create uncertainty for employers and expand agency jurisdiction into routine supervisory interactions. Attorney Steven Poloff, who consults with management, told the panel the proposal would enlarge CHRO's reach and may produce unintended litigation and jurisdictional consequences.
Committee members questioned operational details and whether the draft would create new individual liability for midlevel managers; CHRO witnesses repeatedly said the change is aimed at vicarious liability for ultimate employers and does not create personal liability beyond existing aiding-and-abetting law.
The bill also clarifies CHRO's timelines for early legal intervention and the reopening of complaints, and aligns deadlines for filing in courts following administrative actions with federal timelines; CHRO staff said those clarifications reflect the agency's practice and would reduce confusion.
Committee staff did not take a vote at the hearing. Several members asked CHRO and business stakeholders to continue discussions on the drafting, especially to ensure that the bill would not unintentionally expand individual liability for supervisors or impose burdens that would chill ordinary workplace supervision.
