Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 09 — ELECTIONS · Chapter 151 — Elections: Prohibited Acts and Penalties
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-365 (2026)

Employers' threats

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who (1) during the period that is sixty days or less prior to any election, municipal meeting, school district election or school district meeting, attempts to influence the vote of any operative in his or her employ by threats of withholding employment from him or her or by promises of employment, or (2) dismisses any operative from his or her employment on account of any vote he or she has given at any such election or meeting shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(1949 Rev., S. 1116; 1953, S. 842d; P.A. 12-193, S. 4.)

History: P.A. 12-193 added Subdiv. designators (1) and (2), changed penalty from a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500 or imprisonment of not less than 6 months or more than 12 months or both to a class D felony and made technical changes, effective July 1, 2012.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1998–1999 · leading case: Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 738 A.2d 623 (Conn. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 738 A.2d 623 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “ecution; General Statutes § 53-303e (b), which prohibits a private employer from retaliatory measures against an employee for not working on Saturdays because of religious observance; General Statutes § 27-33, which prohibits retaliatory action by a private employer against an…”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 711 A.2d 1180 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “etaliatory action by a private employer against an employee who absents himself from his work *628 duties while engaging in military or naval duty; General Statutes § 28-17, which prohibits the discharge of an employee because of membership in an organization engaged in civil…”
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.