Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-209 (2026)

Compensation for performance of duties of higher job classification

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any state employee, except an employee who has been designated managerial, who is assigned, by the employee's appointing authority, duties and responsibilities of a job classification higher than the class in which the employee is placed, which assignment has been approved by the Commissioner of Administrative Services, and who works in such assignment on a continuous basis for a period of more than sixty working days, shall be compensated for such time in excess of sixty days at a rate in the higher class which shall not be less than one step in that class above the employee's existing rate of pay. Service in a higher classification under this section shall not constitute permanent status in such class.

(1967, P.A. 657, S. 18; P.A. 73-225; P.A. 77-614, S. 66, 610; P.A. 78-231, S. 3, 10; P.A. 00-68, S. 7.)

History: P.A. 73-225 reworded section to require personnel commissioner's approval for assignment rather than approval for payment at higher classification; P.A. 77-614 replaced personnel commissioner with commissioner of administrative services; P.A. 78-231 excluded managerial employees from provisions of section and replaced commissioner with director of personnel and labor relations; P.A. 00-68 substituted “Commissioner of Administrative Services” for “Director of Personnel and Labor Relations” and made technical changes for the purpose of gender neutrality.

Cited. 175 C. 127.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1978–2008 · leading case: Engle v. Pers. Appeal Bd., 394 A.2d 731 (Conn. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Engle v. Pers. Appeal Bd., 394 A.2d 731 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 15× “Basically the plaintiff’s claims on appeal are that: (1) approval of the personnel commissioner is not required under General Statutes § 5-209 before a state employee can be compensated for working out *129 of class, and (2) even if such approval is required, the state is…”

Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., 961 A.2d 349 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 6× “The statutory language in question provided: “ ‘Any state employee who is assigned, by his appointing authority, duties and responsibilities of a job classification higher than the class in which he is placed, on a continuous basis for a period of more than sixty working days,…”

Pina v. Lantz, 495 F. Supp. 2d 290 (D. Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “Connecticut General Statute § 5-209, which discusses temporary assignment to a position in a higher class, states expressly that “[s]ervice in a higher classification under this section shall not constitute permanent status in such class.”

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.