Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76 (2026)

Discrimination in compensation on the basis of sex. Enforcement by commissioner. Civil action. When discrimination in compensation occurs. Limitation of action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Labor Commissioner shall carry out the provisions of section 31-75 either upon complaint or upon the commissioner's own motion. For this purpose, the commissioner, or the commissioner's authorized representative, may enter places of employment, inspect payrolls, investigate work and operations on which employees are engaged, question employees and take such action as is reasonably necessary to determine compliance with section 31-75. At the request of any employee who has received less than the wage to which the employee is entitled under section 31-75, the commissioner may take an assignment of such wage claim in trust and may bring any legal action necessary to collect such claim. In any action brought by the commissioner, the employer who violates the provisions of section 31-75 may be found liable to the employee or the employees affected for the difference between the amount of wages paid and the maximum wage paid any other employee for equal work, compensatory damages and, if the violation is found to be intentional or committed with reckless indifference to the employee's or employees' rights under section 31-75, punitive damages. Any agreement to work for less than the wage to which such employee is entitled under section 31-75 shall not be a defense to such action.

(b) Unless and except to the extent that a wage claim has been assigned to the commissioner pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, an action to redress a violation of section 31-75 may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees. Any agreement to work for less than the wage to which such employee is entitled under section 31-75 shall not be a defense to such action. An employer who violates section 31-75 may be found liable for the difference between the amount of wages paid and the maximum wage paid any other employee for equal work, compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs, punitive damages if the violation is found to be intentional or committed with reckless indifference to the employee's or employees' rights under section 31-75 and such legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.

(c) For purposes of this section, discrimination in compensation under section 31-75 occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or practice is adopted, when an individual is subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or practice, and shall be deemed to be a continuing violation each time wages, benefits or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or practice.

(d) No action shall be brought or any prosecution instituted for any violation of section 31-75 except within two years after such violation or any act described in subsection (c) of this section, or within three years if such violation is intentional or committed with reckless indifference.

(1953, S. 3017d; P.A. 97-263, S. 20; P.A. 09-101, S. 3.)

History: P.A. 97-263 increased amount of fine from $100 to $200; P.A. 09-101 designated existing provisions as Subsecs. (a) and (d), amended Subsec. (a) by repositioning provision re assignment of wage claim under Sec. 31-75 to commissioner, providing for compensatory damages for claimants and for punitive damages for violation committed with intentional or reckless indifference to employee's rights, deleting provision re costs and attorney's fees, and making technical changes, added Subsec. (b) re employee's private action for violation of Sec. 31-75 and relief that may be sought, added Subsec. (c) re when violation of Sec. 31-75 occurs and amended Subsec. (d) by deleting provision re fine and extending limitation of action for violation of Sec. 31-75.

Cited. 165 C. 318.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: Veeder-Root Co. v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 334 A.2d 443 (Conn. 1973).
Veeder-Root Co. v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 334 A.2d 443 (Conn. 1973). · cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 31-76. Presented *338 with allegations of department-wide discrimination, the commission would have ignored its statutory responsibility had it merely sought to redress the individual grievance of Mrs.”
Maphutha v. Diligent Enter., Inc. (D. Conn. 2021). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages for alleged willful violation of the FLSA and CMWA pursuant to § 216(c) and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76 (c). [Id. ¶ 34].”
Walczak v. Int'l Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Canel Lodge 700 (D. Conn. 2023). · cites it 2× “¶¶ 48–49; unpaid overtime, in violation of the CMWA, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76 (c) (Count Two), id.”
Boisjoly v. Aaron Manor, Inc (D. Conn. 2022). “§ 31-75 (a), § 31-76(b). ECF No. 16. Ryders has moved to dismiss Counts Ten and Eleven for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”
Del Rio v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc. (D. Conn. 2023). “121 , 123–24 (holding “pursuant to § 31-76(b)(2)(A), a meal break is not an ‘hour worked’ unless the ‘employee is required or permitted to work’ during that break, and the test for what constitutes ‘work’ is the predominant benefit test” as defined by the United States Supreme…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76(b) — 1 case
Boisjoly v. Aaron Manor, Inc (D. Conn. 2022). “§ 31-75 (a), § 31-76(b). ECF No. 16. Ryders has moved to dismiss Counts Ten and Eleven for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76(b)(2)(A) — 1 case
Del Rio v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc. (D. Conn. 2023). “121 , 123–24 (holding “pursuant to § 31-76(b)(2)(A), a meal break is not an ‘hour worked’ unless the ‘employee is required or permitted to work’ during that break, and the test for what constitutes ‘work’ is the predominant benefit test” as defined by the United States Supreme…”
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.