Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-247a (2026)

Employer not to discharge employee or require additional hours work for jury service. Eight hours jury duty deemed a legal day's work. Penalty. Action for recovery of wages and reinstatement. Liability of employer for failure to compensate juror-employee

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) An employer shall not deprive an employee of his or her employment, or threaten or otherwise coerce the employee with respect to his or her employment, because the employee receives a summons in accordance with the provisions of section 51-232, responds to the summons, or serves as a juror.

(b) Any juror-employee who has served eight hours of jury duty in any one day shall be deemed to have worked a legal day's work as that term is used in section 31-21 and an employer shall not require the juror-employee to work in excess of said eight hours.

(c) Any employer who violates this section shall be guilty of criminal contempt, and, upon conviction thereof, may be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

(d) If an employer discharges an employee in violation of this section, the employee, within ninety days of such discharge, may bring a civil action for recovery of wages lost as a result of the violation and for an order requiring reinstatement of the employee. Damages recoverable shall not exceed lost wages for ten weeks. If the employee prevails, the employee shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee fixed by the court.

(e) Any employer who fails to compensate a juror-employee pursuant to section 51-247 and who has not been excused from such duty to compensate a juror-employee pursuant to section 51-247c shall be liable to the juror-employee for damages. The juror may commence a civil action in any superior court having jurisdiction over the parties. Extreme financial hardship on the employer shall not be a defense to such action. The court may award treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees to the juror upon a finding of wilful conduct by the employer.

(f) Each state's attorney, assistant state's attorney and deputy assistant state's attorney shall collect in the name of the state and by suit when necessary, any fines imposed under this chapter.

(P.A. 80-240, S. 1, 2; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-5, S. 15, 18; P.A. 84-393, S. 16, 18, 20; P.A. 87-385, S. 3, 4; P.A. 08-103, S. 3.)

History: June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-5, effective July 1, 1985, and applicable to summoning of jurors for jury duty on and after September 1, 1986, added Subsec. (c) re collection of fines by state's attorney, assistant state's attorney and deputy assistant state's attorney; P.A. 84-393 repealed amendments enacted by June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-5 and made Subsec. (a) applicable to jurors selected and summoned to serve on or before august 31, 1986, and added Subsec. (b) re discharge of employee because of jury summons and provision re collection of fines by state's attorneys, applicable to jurors selected and summoned to serve on or after September 1, 1986; P.A. 87-385, effective September 1, 1988, deleted former Subsec. (a) re duties of employer re employee who is summoned to serve on or before August 31, 1986, inserted new Subsec. (c) re liability of employer who fails to compensate employee under Sec. 51-247(b) and Sec. 51-247c, deleted obsolete provision re applicability to jurors selected and summoned on or after September 1, 1986, and relettered Subsecs. as necessary; P.A. 08-103 inserted new Subsec. (b) re 8 hours of jury duty in 1 day deemed legal day's work and prohibiting additional work requirement, redesignated contempt provision in Subsec. (a) as new Subsec. (c), redesignated existing Subsecs. (b) to (d) as new Subsecs. (d) to (f), respectively, and made technical changes.

Cited. 193 C. 558.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1984–2017 · leading case: Pickering v. Aspen Dental Mgmt., Inc., 919 A.2d 520 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pickering v. Aspen Dental Mgmt., Inc., 919 A.2d 520 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 20× “The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, claiming that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to strike the first count of her complaint, 1 which alleged that the defendant violated General Statutes § 51-247a 2 when it terminated the plaintiffs…”

Magnan v. Anaconda Indus., Inc., 479 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 2× “For examples of state statutes restricting the employer’s right to dismiss an employee, see Public Acts 1983, No. 83-578 (prohibiting dismissal in retaliation for exercising free speech rights); General Statutes § 46a-60 (prohibiting dismissal for reasons of race, sex, religion,…”

Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 738 A.2d 623 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “(where employee reports violation of law by employer); General Statutes §§ 31-40k and 31-40o (where employee seeks information regarding toxic substances at workplace); General Statutes § 31-290a (where employee files claim for workers’ compensation benefits); General Statutes §…”

Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 711 A.2d 1180 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “ollectively; General Statutes § 31-290a, which prevents private employers from using retaliatory measures against an employee who files a claim for workers’ compensation benefits; General Statutes § 31-379, which prevents private employers from using retaliatory measures against…”

Martinez v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 154 A.3d 1048 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 5× “Specifically, the defendant argues that the record is replete with sufficient evidence to support board's finding of wilful misconduct, and that the trial court applied and incorrect standard of review and improperly concluded that the plaintiff's discharge violated public…”

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.