Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 571 — Occupational Safety and Health Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-379 (2026)

Discriminatory practices prohibited. Complaint: Filing; hearing; relief. Appeal to Superior Court

✓ 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 person shall discharge, discipline, penalize or in any manner discriminate against any employee (1) because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, (2) because such employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or (3) because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of such employee or others of any right afforded by this chapter.

(b) Any employee who believes that such employee has been discharged, disciplined, penalized or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this section may, not later than one hundred eighty days after such violation occurs, file a complaint with the commissioner alleging such violation. Upon receipt of such complaint the commissioner shall hold a hearing in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54.

(c) The commissioner may award an aggrieved employee all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to the employee's former position, back pay and reestablishment of any employee benefits to which the employee would otherwise have been eligible if such violation had not occurred. The commissioner shall award a prevailing employee such employee's costs, together with reasonable attorneys' fees to be determined by the commissioner.

(d) Any party aggrieved by the commissioner's decision under subsection (c) of this section may appeal the decision to the Superior Court in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54.

(P.A. 73-379, S. 12, 21; P.A. 76-436, S. 265, 681; P.A. 78-280, S. 5, 127; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6; P.A. 99-146.)

History: P.A. 76-436 replaced court of common pleas with superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-280 replaced “Hartford county” with “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain”; P.A. 88-230 replaced “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford”, effective September 1, 1991; P.A. 90-98 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1991, to September 1, 1993; P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 99-146 made technical changes, amended Subsec. (a) to add Subdiv. indicators and prohibit employers from disciplining or penalizing employees who file complaints or institute proceedings under the Connecticut Occupational Safety and Health Act, amended Subsec. (b) to extend the time for filing complaints against employers from 30 to 180 days following a violation and delete provisions requiring the commissioner to investigate complaints and institute Superior Court actions as necessary and instead required the commissioner to hold hearings on complaints in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, amended Subsec. (c) to delete the commissioner's notice requirements and specify the relief the commissioner is authorized to grant to aggrieved employees in Subsec. and added a new Subsec. (d) to authorize appeals to the Superior Court.

Cited. 40 CA 577.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1 (Conn. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 4× “Although not cited by either party, it should be noted that the plaintiff also was precluded from bringing a common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge because General Statutes § 31-379 provided the plaintiff with a statutory administrative remedy under state law nearly…”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 738 A.2d 623 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 4× “employer for requiring an employee to take a polygraph test; General Statutes §§ 31-104 and 31-105, which make it an unfair labor practice for private employers to prevent employees from bargaining collectively; General Statutes § 31-290a, which prevents private employers from…”
Barry v. Posi-Seal Int'l, Inc., 672 A.2d 514 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “utes § 31-51m; discharge due to an employee’s exercise of first amendment rights as long as the exercise of the rights does not interfere with the employee’s work; General Statutes § 31-51q; discharge for exercise of rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act; General Statutes §…”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 711 A.2d 1180 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “employer for requiring an employee to take a polygraph test; General Statutes §§ 31-104 and 31-105, which make it an unfair labor practice for private employers to prevent employees from bargaining collectively; General Statutes § 31-290a, which prevents private employers from…”
Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 31-379 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) No person shall discharge, discipline, penalize or in any manner discriminate against any employee .”
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.