Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-230 (2026)

Working test periods

✓ current as of May 2026

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

The Commissioner of Administrative Services shall establish appropriate working test periods of not less than three months nor more than one year for the various classes of positions. Within ten days preceding the termination of the working test period, and at such other times as the commissioner deems appropriate, the appointing authority shall report to the commissioner whether such employee is able and willing to perform his duties in a manner so as to merit permanent appointment. At any time during the working test period, after fair trial, the appointing authority may remove any employee if, in the opinion of such appointing authority, the working test indicates that such employee is unable or unwilling to perform his or her duties so as to merit continuance in such position and shall report such removal to the commissioner. The name of any employee so removed, but who is considered by the commissioner to be suitable for employment in some other department, agency or institution, may be restored to the candidate list if such list is active. For the purposes of this section, any employee who has served part of a working test period in a position in the classified service who is, pursuant to examination, appointed to, and serves part of a working test period in, a position in a higher classification in a field of work directly related to his or her prior position, from which new position he or she is dismissed, shall, at his or her option, be reappointed to the position which such employee first had and his or her service in the working test period for such first position shall be deemed to include the time spent in the working test period for the higher position.

(1967, P.A. 657, S. 39; P.A. 77-614, S. 66, 610; P.A. 92-165, S. 21, 32; P.A. 13-247, S. 362.)

History: P.A. 77-614 replaced personnel commissioner with commissioner of administrative services; P.A. 92-165 changed “employment list” to “candidate list” and made technical changes; P.A. 13-247 replaced “requires” with “deems appropriate” re other times for report, deleted provision re waiver for reports on certain positions at institutions, added “if such list is active” re restoration of employee's name to candidate list and made technical changes, effective July 1, 2013.

Notification to plaintiff of decision to drop her communicated the day after termination of 6-month working test period sufficient. 157 C. 126. Cited. 170 C. 541; 174 C. 271; 176 C. 1.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1976–2014 · leading case: Coppola v. Pers. Appeal Bd., 386 A.2d 228 (Conn. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coppola v. Pers. Appeal Bd., 386 A.2d 228 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 4× “Upon appointment, the plain *273 tiff’s status did not fit within any of these categories, and the category of “conditional employee” does not appear in the statutes or regulations. Instead, the plaintiff was a probationary employee who could achieve permanent status only after…”

Chotkowski v. Connecticut Pers. Appeal Bd., 404 A.2d 868 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 2× “The purpose of the working test requirement is to provide a trial working period “during which the work and conduct of the employee shall be noted by the appointing authority or his authorized agent and reported upon to determine whether such employee merits permanent…”

Millard v. Connecticut Pers. Appeal Bd., 368 A.2d 121 (Conn. 1976). · cites it 2× “” To obtain such permanent appointment, an employee must satisfy a six-month working test requirement, under General Statutes § 5-230 and Regulations, Connecticut State Agencies § 5-9-14.”

State v. AFSCME, 537 A.2d 517 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 2× “serve a six month working test period commencing with the date of her appointment from the competitive list and by ruling that the grievance was arbitrable?” We note, for example, that the requirement contained in General Statutes § 5-230, that the working test period range in…”

Carlus v. Connecticut Dep't of Pub. Health, 4 F. Supp. 3d 382 (D. Conn. 2014). · cites it 2× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 5-230. Thus, terminating the plaintiffs employment prior to the completion of the working test period was permissible if DPH determined that the plaintiff was unable to meet the job requirements.”

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.