(a) No employer shall compel any employee engaged in any commercial occupation or in the work of any industrial process to work more than six days in any calendar week. An employee's refusal to work more than six days in any calendar week shall not constitute grounds for his dismissal.
(b) Any employee, who believes that his discharge was in violation of subsection (a) of this section may appeal such discharge to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration. If said board finds that the employee was discharged in violation of said subsection (a), it may order whatever remedy will make the employee whole, including but not limited to reinstatement to his former or a comparable position.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars.
(P.A. 76-415, S. 5; 76-435, S. 81, 82; P.A. 13-140, S. 17.)
History: P.A. 76-435 changed effective date of P.A. 76-415 from October 1, 1976, to date of passage; P.A. 13-140 deleted former Subsec. (b) re employers requiring employees to work on the Sabbath, redesignated existing Subsec. (c) as Subsec. (b), deleted former Subsec. (d) re employers inquiring about applicants' observation of the Sabbath, redesignated existing Subsec. (e) as Subsec. (c), and made conforming changes, effective June 18, 2013.
Discussion of constitutionality of Sunday closing laws or Blue Laws. 177 C. 304. Former Subsec. (b) did not pass the “clear secular purpose” test of establishment clause scrutiny; decision that former Subsec. (b) is violative of establishment clause does not extend to other provisions of statute. 191 C. 336. Cited. 229 C. 312.
Notes of Decisions
Caldor, Inc. v. Thornton, 464 A.2d 785 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 106× “On May 6, 1980, the defendant appealed Caldor's actions to the Connecticut state board of mediation and arbitration (hereinafter the board) alleging wrongful discharge under General Statutes § 53-303e in that as a department manager he was unable to observe his Sabbath.”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 738 A.2d 623 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 6× “violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; General Statutes § 5 l-247a, which prohibits retaliatory measures by a private employer against an employee for responding to a summons to act as a juror or for serving as a juror; General Statutes § 52-361a (j), which…”
Caldor's, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc., 417 A.2d 343 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Related sections which had survived until 1978 included: § 53-300a, validating Sunday real estate contracts; § 53-301, forbidding Sunday dealing in automobiles; § 53-303, allowing a Sabbatarian exemption from Sunday closing for those conscientiously observing Saturday as a…”
Fair Cadillac-Oldsmobile Isuzu P'ship v. Bailey, 640 A.2d 101 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 2× “” This objective is accomplished, however, by General Statutes § 53-303e (a), which provides that no employer may “compel any employee engaged in any commercial occupation .”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 711 A.2d 1180 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “iolation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; General Statutes § 51-247a, which prohibits retaliatory measures by a private employer against an employee for responding to a summons to act as a juror or for serving as a juror; General Statutes § 52-361a (j), which prohibits…”
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.