Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-241 (2026)

Order of layoffs. Notice. Placement on reemployment list

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) No employee in the classified service who has been performing his duties in a satisfactory manner as shown by the records of the department, agency or institution in which he has been employed shall be dismissed or laid off from his position because of lack of work, economy, insufficient appropriation, change in departmental organization, abolition of position or any cause other than disability, delinquency, incompetency, misconduct or neglect of duty, if any other employee in the same classification performing comparable duties with less state service is to be retained in the same department, agency or institution. For the purposes of this section, the Employment Security Division may, at the discretion of the Labor Commissioner, be excluded from the remainder of the Labor Department and deemed to be a separate agency.

(b) An appointing authority desiring to lay off an employee shall give him not less than two weeks' notice in writing, stating the reason for such action, except that in the case of an employee, as defined in section 5-196, who is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement and who has been in the classified service for (1) at least five but not more than ten years, the appointing authority shall provide at least four weeks' notice, (2) more than ten but not more than fifteen years, the appointing authority shall provide at least six weeks' notice, (3) more than fifteen years, the appointing authority shall provide at least eight weeks' notice. A copy of such notice shall immediately be forwarded to the Commissioner of Administrative Services. The commissioner shall arrange to have the employee transferred to a vacancy in the same or a comparable class or in any other position the employee is qualified to fill in any department, agency or institution. If there is no vacancy available or the employee refuses to accept the transfer, the commissioner shall cause the name of such employee to be placed on the reemployment list for the appropriate class for which such employee has attained permanent status or has the ability to qualify, as determined by the commissioner. During the period any employee is entitled to remain on the reemployment list, such an employee shall be rehired in the classification from which he or she was laid off or for which he or she is qualified, as vacancies occur, in the reverse order of layoff. Any employee who is rehired from a reemployment or other employment list into a classification in which he or she had prior status shall not be required to complete a new working test period, as defined in subdivision (27) of section 5-196.

(1967, P.A. 657, S. 51; P.A. 73-128; P.A. 77-614, S. 66, 610; P.A. 92-165, S. 29, 32; P.A. 93-426, S. 1; P.A. 96-168, S. 30, 34; P.A. 13-247, S. 367.)

History: P.A. 73-128 substituted employment security division for unemployment compensation division; P.A. 77-614 replaced personnel commissioner with commissioner of administrative services; P.A. 92-165 provided that an employee shall be rehired in the classification for which he is qualified and made technical changes in Subsec. (b); P.A. 93-426 amended Subsec. (b) to add provisions re layoff notice requirements for classified employees who are not covered by collective bargaining agreements; P.A. 96-168 amended Subsec. (b) to provide that employees rehired from reemployment lists do not have to complete a new working test period, effective July 1, 1996; P.A. 13-247 amended Subsec. (b) by adding provisions re rehiring from other employment list and re rehiring into a classification in which employee had prior status, and making technical changes, effective July 1, 2013.

Board of trustees of a state university have the right to contract out their food service operation and eliminate classified positions therein, provided such elimination was for an enumerated reason. 165 C. 757. Cited. 170 C. 668; 231 C. 391; 239 C. 638. Plaintiff's claim that he was laid off in violation of statute is barred by doctrine of sovereign immunity because defendants acted in accordance with legislatively approved collective bargaining agreement provisions that superseded statute. 278 C. 204.

Subsec. (b):

Violated where commissioner failed to transfer laid-off employee to vacancy in same or comparable class or to any position for which he was qualified. 35 CS 45.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1974–2006 · leading case: Cox v. Aiken, 897 A.2d 71 (Conn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cox v. Aiken, 897 A.2d 71 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 24× “In this appeal, we consider whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes a state employee from bringing an action against the officials who allegedly laid him off from his employment in the classified service in violation of the seniority restrictions set forth in…”

State v. State Employees' Review Bd., 687 A.2d 134 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 11× “*641 The defendant appealed his layoff to the board pursuant to General Statutes § 5-202, 3 seeking a determination *642 that the layoff was not in compliance with General Statutes § 5-241, 4 which requires that the least senior employee within a position classification slated…”

Cox v. Aiken, 862 A.2d 319 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 15× “1 General Statutes § 5-241 (a) provides in relevant part: “No employee in the classified service who has been performing his duties in a satisfactory manner as shown by the records of the department, agency or institution in which he has been employed shall be dismissed or laid…”

State v. State Employees' Review Bd., 650 A.2d 158 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 5-241 provides in pertinent part: “order of LAYOFFS.”

Wagner v. Connecticut Pers. Appeal Bd., 368 A.2d 20 (Conn. 1976). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 5-241. However, neither those nor similar considerations are applicable in the present case.”

Connecticut State Employees Ass'n v. Bd. of Trs., 345 A.2d 36 (Conn. 1974). · cites it 8× “” The plaintiffs apparently read this to mean that all services rendered by the state must be subject to the State Personnel Act.”

Ruffin v. Dep't of Pub. Works, 914 A.2d 617 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 19× “The plaintiff further alleges that General Statutes § 5-241 was violated due to their failure to place her name on a reemployment list for those laid off from state service and to hire her from that list.”

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.