Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 17a — SOCIAL AND HUMAN SERVICES AND RESOURCES · Chapter 319b — Department of Developmental Services
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-247c (2026)

Prohibition on hiring persons on registry. Notice to employers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No employer shall hire a person whose name appears on the registry and no employer shall retain an employee after receiving notice that such employee's name so appears.

(b) The department shall, on at least a semiannual basis, issue a notice to employers containing the name of each former employee placed on the registry and the identifying information pertaining to such former employee as provided in subsection (d) of section 17a-247b.

(June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-2, S. 158, 165; P.A. 98-133, S. 3; P.A. 00-37, S. 3, 5; P.A. 14-165, S. 4; P.A. 18-32, S. 21.)

History: June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-2 effective July 1, 1997; P.A. 98-133 amended former Subsec. (a) by prohibiting hiring after notice of a name on the registry rather than requiring inquiry before hiring and deleted former Subsec. (b) re unauthorized inquiries about the registry; P.A. 00-37 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b) re notice to employers, effective May 1, 2000; P.A. 14-165 amended Subsec. (a) by replacing “an individual” with “a person” and replacing “individual” with “employee”, amended Subsec. (b) by replacing “individual” with “former employee” and made a technical change; P.A. 18-32 amended Subsec. (a) by making a technical change, effective July 1, 2018.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2004–2013 · leading case: State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, 855 A.2d 964 (Conn. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, 855 A.2d 964 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 8× “The union counters that the trial court properly confirmed the arbitrator's award because it did not violate the explicit, well-defined and dominant public policy of this state as set forth in General Statutes § 17a-247c. We agree with the union.”
Burr Road Operating Co. v. New England Health Care Employees Union, 70 A.3d 42 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “The union countered that the trial court properly confirmed the arbitrator’s award because it did not violate the explicit, well-defined and dominant public policy of this state as set forth in General Statutes § 17a-247c. Id. Our Supreme Court agreed with the union, and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.