Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 558 — Wages
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-76c (2026)

Length of workweek

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No employer, except as otherwise provided herein, shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives remuneration for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.

(1967, P.A. 493, S. 2.)

Scope of federal preemption discussed and determined. 164 C. 233. Cited. 219 C. 520; 223 C. 573. Section does not prohibit use of the fluctuating method to derive an employee's regular rate, with the sole exception of certain delivery drivers and sales merchandisers. 326 C. 651.

Cited. 16 CA 437.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Williams v. Gen. Nutrition Centers, Inc., 166 A.3d 625 (Conn. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Gen. Nutrition Centers, Inc., 166 A.3d 625 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 14× “General Statutes § 31-76c. Calculating overtime pay for employees paid a fixed hourly wage is straightforward-their "regular rate" is their hourly wage, so they must be paid one and one-half times their hourly wage for each overtime hour worked.”
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 828 A.2d 64 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 31-76c provides: “No employer, except as otherwise provided herein, shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives remuneration for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not…”
Del Rio v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc., 354 Conn. 151 (Conn. 2026). · cites it 8× “9 Alternatively, Amazon claims that the plain language of § 31-76b (2) (A) yields absurd or unworkable results 9 In a similar vein, Amazon contends that the definition of “workweek” in General Statutes § 31-76c combined with the definition of “employee” in § 31-76b (3) renders…”
Sorrentino v. All Seasons Servs., Inc., 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 421 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 5× “He claimed that the defendant had: (1) discharged him in violation of § 31-290a; (2) failed to pay his wages in violation of General Statutes § 31-76c; 2 and (3) committed an unfair trade practice *759 under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).”
Hendricks v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 677 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D. Conn. 2009). · cites it 7× “§ 207 (a)(1); Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-76c. JPMorgan filed motions for summary judgment against Hendricks (Doc.”
Roto-Rooter Servs. Co. v. Dep't of Labor, 593 A.2d 1386 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 4× “services” in General Statutes § 31-761 (g), 1 *522 which exempts certain employers from the overtime pay requirements of General Statutes § 31-76c, 2 to mean commissions earned by employees who only sell services.”
Peraro Ex Rel. Castro v. Chemlawn Servs. Corp., 692 F. Supp. 109 (D. Conn. 1988). · cites it 8× “Chemlawn relies on section 31-76i(a) of the General Statutes, which states in relevant part that section 31-76c shall not apply to “any driver .”
Butler ex rel. Skidmore v. Hartford Technical Inst., Inc., 704 A.2d 222 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 31-76c provides: “No employer, except as otherwise provided herein, shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives remuneration for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not…”
Comm'r of Labor v. C.J.M. Servs., Inc., 842 A.2d 1124 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 31-76c provides: “No employer, except as otherwise provided herein, shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives remuneration for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not…”
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Tianti, 613 A.2d 281 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 4× “II Failure to Pay Overtime Wages We turn next to the plaintiffs claim that the failure to pay overtime wages, although a violation of General Statutes § 31-76c, 6 does not constitute a failure to pay the customary or prevailing wage rate pursuant to § 31-53 (a) and, therefore,…”
Arasimowicz v. All Panel Sys., LLC, 948 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 2× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-76c. Also, like the FLSA, the CMWA places the burden on the employer to prove that an employee fits within an exemption.”
Lassen v. Hoyt Livery, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 165 (D. Conn. 2015). · cites it 2× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-76c. The Connecticut Supreme Court has indicated that, in interpreting the CMWA, federal precedent interpreting analogous provisions of the FLSA can be used.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.