(a) The General Assembly reserves the right to amend or repeal all or any part of this chapter at any time, and no vested private right shall prevent such amendment or repeal. All of the rights, privileges or immunities conferred by this chapter, or by acts done pursuant thereto, shall exist subject to the power of the General Assembly to amend or repeal it at any time.
(b) No part of this chapter shall be deemed repealed by subsequent legislation if such construction can reasonably be avoided.
(c) The provisions of this chapter shall be construed, interpreted and administered in such manner as to presume coverage, eligibility and nondisqualification in doubtful cases.
(d) In the event of any conflict between any provision of this chapter and applicable federal law in respect to payment of benefits, coverage or eligibility, the federal law shall prevail if said federal law increases or extends benefits, coverage or eligibility beyond the provisions of this chapter, and the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to be in conformity with the law of the United States.
(e) As applied to this chapter, any amendment in the statute law of the United States which would by implication amend or repeal any provision of this chapter, where such amendment or repealer will increase or extend benefits, coverage or eligibility, shall be deemed and construed to be a provision of this chapter and the law of this state.
(f) As used in any of the provisions of this chapter, the clause “governmental districts, regions or entities, established under state statutes”, and the phrases “political and governmental subdivisions”, “political or governmental subdivision or entity” and similar terms shall be construed and interpreted to include any and all political subdivisions of this state, including, without limitation, any town, city, county, borough, district, school board, board of education, board of regents, social service or welfare agency, public and quasi-public corporation, housing authority, parking authority, redevelopment and urban renewal board or commission, or other authority or public agency established by law, irrespective of whether such authority or agency has power to hire and discharge employees separate and apart from any other political or governmental subdivision of which it is a part, or with which it may be affiliated, and any water district, sewer district or similar authority established by special act or existing under the general statutes of this state.
(1949 Rev., S. 7544; 1971, P.A. 835, S. 32.)
History: 1971 act added Subsecs. (b) to (f) re construction of chapter.
Section made plaintiff's right to benefits subject to contingency that General Assembly might amend or even repeal the law. 137 C. 129. Cited. 181 C. 1; 184 C. 317; 196 C. 546; 238 C. 273.
Cited. 2 CA 1.
Cited. 39 CS 371; 42 CS 376.
Secs. 31-274a to 31-274f. Nonprofit organizations. Sections 31-274a to 31-274f, inclusive, are repealed.
(1967, P.A. 654, S. 2–7; 1971, P.A. 835, S. 33; June, 1971, P.A. 3, S. 1, 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Fed. Aviation Admin. v. Adm'r, 494 A.2d 564 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 9× “General Statutes § 31-236 (2) (B) clearly disqualifies an individual from receiving benefits if dis *551 charged from employment for felonious conduct. The board found that the defendants were discharged for felonious conduct.”
Burnham v. Adm'r, 439 A.2d 1008 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 2× “To the extent that difficulties with chargeability in this case were to create negative implications for eligibility in another ease, relief for the employer would be inconsistent with the expressed purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act.”
Robinson v. Unemployment Sec. Bd. of Review, 434 A.2d 293 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 In its brief, and on oral argument, the defendant employer sought to place before this court the issue of whether the award of benefits to the plaintiff was made pursuant to an invalid regulation issued by the administrator.”
Sharp v. Mitchell, 546 A.2d 846 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “I The plaintiffs argue that they should be permitted to sue the defendants for negligently causing the deaths of their decedents because the Workers’ Compensation Act, as applied to them, violates article first, § 10, of the constitution of Connecticut.”
Sw. Appraisal Grp., LLC v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 155 A.3d 738 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 2× “3d 581 ; see also General Statutes § 31-274 (c). In applying the ABC test, we must balance preventing the use of sham independent contractor agreements to avoid unemployment insurance obligations against "hamper[ing] those who undertake to do business together as independent…”
Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, 622 A.2d 622 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 3× “It is pointed out that these appeals cannot be concluded, as the defendant seems to suggest, to be “doubtful cases” as that term is set out in General Statutes § 31-274 (c). This court concludes that, under the circumstances, sustaining the appeals in each of these two cases…”
Steinberg v. Fusari, 364 F. Supp. 922 (D. Conn. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-274 (c). 7 . The parties originally stipulated that these reasons accounted for between 60 and 70 per cent of all denials of benefits resulting from “seated interviews.”
Resso v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 83 A.3d 723 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2d 347 (1996) (citing General Statutes § 31-274 [c]). Thus, we conclude that the defendant, or any reviewing administrative authority, in making a finding of wilful misconduct, must expressly make findings as to all of the elements listed in the relevant regulation, including a…”
Taminski v. Adm'r, 362 A.2d 868 (Conn. 1975).
“The legislature has emphasized this purpose in § 31-274 (c) in the following language: “The provisions of this chapter shall be construed, interpreted and administered in such manner as to presume coverage, eligibility and nondisqualification in doubtful cases.” Consequently, in…”
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.