Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 557 — Employment Regulation
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51 (2026)

Blacklisting

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person, or any officer or agent of any corporation, company, firm, or the state or any political subdivision thereof, who blacklists any employee, mechanic or laborer, or publishes or causes to be published the name of any such employee, mechanic or laborer, with the intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee, mechanic or laborer from engaging in or securing employment from any other person, corporation, company, firm, or the state or any political subdivision thereof, or, in any manner, conspires or contrives, by correspondence or otherwise, to prevent such employee, mechanic or laborer from procuring employment, shall be fined not less than fifty and not more than two hundred dollars; but the provisions of this section shall not be construed so as to prohibit any person, or any officer or agent of any corporation, company, firm, or the state or any political subdivision thereof, from giving a truthful statement of any facts concerning a present or former employee of such person, corporation, company, firm, or the state or any political subdivision thereof, on the application of such employee or of any person, or any officer or agent of any corporation, company, firm, or the state or any political subdivision thereof, who may be considering the employment of such employee.

(1949 Rev., S. 8531; P.A. 75-104.)

History: P.A. 75-104 made provisions applicable to the state and its political subdivisions.

See Sec. 31-105 re unfair labor practices.

Cited. 313 U.S. 184. Section does not preclude application of a qualified privilege to statements made in an employment reference. 284 C. 35.

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

Secs. 31-51a to 31-51e. Transferred to Chapter 557, Part Ia, Secs. 31-22m to 31-22q, inclusive.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: S. New England Tel. Co. v. Cashman, 931 A.2d 142 (Conn. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Cashman, 931 A.2d 142 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 58× “The former statute grants an eligible employee the right to elect, and an employer the right to require the employee, "to substitute any of the accrued paid . . . sick leave of the employee" for any part of the family medical leave to which the employee is entitled under that…”
Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co., 952 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 13× “Burris claims that because there is an alternative statutory remedy, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-51 q, under which Plaintiffs have asserted a claim, in Count Three of each Complaint, Plaintiffs are precluded from bringing their common law wrongful discharge claims.”
Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Conn. 2018). · cites it 3× “A plaintiff may recover under a theory of wrongful discharge, notwithstanding a contemporaneous claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51 q, where the basis of the wrongful discharge claim is a public policy for which the plaintiff is without remedy.”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 738 A.2d 623 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 4× “loyee for seeking information about toxic substances used at the workplace; General Statutes § 31-48b, which provides criminal sanctions against a private employer who records or monitors activities of employees in areas designed for the personal health or comfort of the…”
Miron v. Univ. of New Haven Police Dep't, 931 A.2d 847 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 6× “Specifically, the plaintiff contends that General Statutes §§ 31-128e 5 and 31-128f 6 of the Connecticut personnel files act, and the state’s blacklisting statute; General Statutes § 31-51; 7 preclude the application of a *42 qualified privilege to statements made in the context…”
Banerjee v. Roberts, 641 F. Supp. 1093 (D. Conn. 1986). · cites it 4× “§§ 46a-58(a) and 46a-60 (a)(1) and the “anti-blacklisting” provisions of C.G.S. § 31-51. However, a plaintiff cannot bring suit directly for a violation of C.”
Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 2× “The existence of this statutory remedy precludes the plaintiff from bringing a common-law wrongful discharge action based on an alleged violation of § 31-51 (b). See Atkins v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.”
Arnone v. Town of Enfield, 831 A.2d 260 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “In response to those disciplinary actions, on February 28, 1996, the plaintiff filed a two count complaint, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant had violated General Statutes § 31-51 m 3 by disciplining him in retaliation for his whistle-blowing activities and by…”
Urashka v. Griffin Hosp., 841 F. Supp. 468 (D. Conn. 1994). · cites it 3× “2 The plaintiff alleges in Counts III through IX various state law claims, including breach of implied contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, detrimental reliance, breach of an express and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the…”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 711 A.2d 1180 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “loyee for seeking information about toxic substances used at the workplace; General Statutes § 31-48b, which provides criminal sanctions against a private employer who records or monitors activities of employees in areas designed for the personal health or comfort of the…”
Jennings v. Town of Stratford, 263 F. Supp. 3d 391 (D. Conn. 2017). “3d 111 (2012) (explaining scope of § 31-51 q); Bracey v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Bridgeport, 368 F.”
Van Kruiningen v. PLAN B, LLC, 485 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D. Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “1986) (no public policy termination claim where plaintiff did not allege violation of “anti-blacklisting” provision of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51 before his dismissal and where Conn.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51(b) — 2 cases
Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Conn. 2018). “A plaintiff may recover under a theory of wrongful discharge, notwithstanding a contemporaneous claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51 q, where the basis of the wrongful discharge claim is a public policy for which the plaintiff is without remedy.”
Simons v. Yale Univ. (D. Conn. 2020).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51(x) — 1 case
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Conn. 2007).
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.