Legitalk:

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Good morning. We are now convening the public hearing for the Labor and Public Employees Committee, this the March 3. And I think we're ready to begin. We have a packed agenda here today, and so we'll get started right away with our first witness which is Kellie Marie Velez Valeris. Good morning.

[Dr. Kelli-Marie Vallieres (Chief Workforce Officer; Vice Chair, Governor’s Workforce Council)]: Good morning, Senator Kirschner. Good morning, Representative Weir and representative, sorry I can't read your name from Shane. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, in front of you this morning, regarding raised Bill three forty six, an act concerning the modification to the Governor's Workforce Council. My name is Kelly Marie Valeries and I'm the Chief Workforce Officer overseeing the Office of Workforce Strategy and also the Vice Chair of the Governor's Workforce Council. The Governor's Workforce Council serves as the required state workforce board for the federally, mandated WIOA, which is a workforce innovation and opportunity act. WIOA, funds the state of Connecticut around 30 to $34,000,000 a year, depending on the formula, coming down to the state. And it supports the, five regional workforce boards and the required federally, responsible, mandates for, workforce development. The Governor's Workforce Council serves as the, state workforce board as required. Our state workforce board is a very robust board. We've been very successful. Currently, we have over 50 members on our board and each year we have several, members who would like to be added to the board. So, we're here today to talk a little bit about, the requirements of WIOA and why we're here today, with this legislation in front of us. The WIOA requires the governor to appoint a diverse set of workforce stakeholders to ensure that the business led board can fulfill its many roles and responsibilities under the federal WIOA statute. And these provide guidelines to the composition of the State Workforce Board while leaving specific details to the exact breakdown of the members of the board to individual states. However, there are certain requirements that the States must meet, including having a business majority among board members appointed by the Governor and certain core members. Connecticut's current statutory language no longer complies with the federal statute and the expansion of the GWC has disrupted the balance of members. Moreover, the unchecked growth creates a board that is more challenging to effectively manage. The current state board is is the current statute is in compliance with the federal statute as far as it does include the governor and a legislator from each chamber, at least one small business rep, at least 20% of businesses representing the workforce, a commissioner of the Department of Labor and the commissioner of education, two municipal elected officials, and a requirement that all appointments are to be made in a manner that reflects the diversity of the state, including but not limited to the geographic, gender identity, racial, and ethnic diversity. The proposed adjustments made by Senate Bill three forty six will bring the State Workforce Board into full compliance by the following four proposed changes. Adding six business members to ensure a business majority of individuals are appointed by the Governor, moving a member serving as the expert in residential construction to be counted as the business representative. This was an individual that was added to, pass legislation. Adding a representative for vocational rehabilitation. So the board includes all of the state's officials with primary responsibilities to the core programs and setting a membership cap of 61. The composition proposed by this legislation leaves the existing membership intact and complies with all the federal law. Imposing a cap ensures, continued compliance with the federal law. Compliance with the federal statute is critical to approve the state's biannual WIOA, Workforce Plan. Without this approval, federal funds for WIOA are at risk. They may be delayed or ineligible for release altogether. This could cause potential program and operational distribution. Currently, we are out of compliance and our, WIOA plan is on hold until we make these adjustments. So with this bill, it has been developed in collaboration with the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Aging and Disability Services and it recognizes that all the current GWC membership composition remains the same and adds the adjustments to ensure that we are in federal compliance.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions from members of the committee? I don't see any. I think that, you, your office has been good about keeping us posted, about being in compliance. And of course, that's critically important. So I assume this will be something that we can do by on a bipartisan basis and get through the legislature this year so that we continue to have these important funds from the federal government for these critical programs. So thank you for testifying today.

[Dr. Kelli-Marie Vallieres (Chief Workforce Officer; Vice Chair, Governor’s Workforce Council)]: Great. Thank you very much, Senator Kushner. Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, I believe Tanya is not able to be here because of a family emergency but we are going to call up next then Cheryl Sharp,

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: the deputy executive director of

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: the commission on human rights. And are you coming up together as a group? Okay, great. Okay, great. That's great. So we'll have both Cheryl and Michelle, Cheryl Sharp and Michelle Dumasculer.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Okay. Great.

[Cheryl Sharp (Deputy Executive Director, CT Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities)]: So good morning, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, Senator Sampson, Representative Ware, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding. The various bills. SP three fifty five an act concerning limitations on the use of non disclosure agreements Senate bill. Three forty five, an act concerning breastfeeding in the workplace, pre and post shift hours and establishing a task force to study workplace, heat safety standards. And SB three fifty three, an act concerning reasonable accommodation in the workplace for conditions related to menopause. I am not Tanya Hughes. I am Cheryl Sharp, the deputy executive director and our executive director sends her her regret regrets. She had a family emergency today that would not allow her to be here with us. We submit this testimony and I am joined by attorney Michelle Demiscular who is the managing director of our legal department on the appellate side in housing. So the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is supportive of the concept behind section one of senate bill three fifty five regarding non disclosure agreement. Several states have already prohibited NDAs for good reason. Some employers require perspective or new employee ease to sign an NDA as a term of beginning their employment. NDAs can also be included in settlement agreements that prevent victims of discrimination and harassment from talking about discussing their experiences. These NDA provisions and settlement agreements can prevent victims from discussing whether the harassment even occurred. As such, the NDAs pose multiple problems or or issues, and and that's why we're in support of of this bill. Senate bill three forty five, the breastfeeding in the workplace bill. We are supportive of this language that strengthens protections for individuals who breastfeed in the workplace. Section one of senate bill three four five provides that an employee must have the opportunity to use break time to express breast milk at the time that it is needed. SB three forty five puts Connecticut more in line with the federal law under the Fair Labor Standards Act and provides urgent maternal protection protections for nursing mothers and provides an additional layer of protection under state law. Currently, the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act or feedback requires that Connecticut employers provide reasonable accommodation for employees that are pregnant or lactating. We have guidance that we've provided and it's available on our website. And lastly, Senate Bill three fifty three, the reasonable accommodation in the workplace for conditions related to menopause. CHRO supports this bill. The Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act already prohibits discrimination because of sex and disability and courts interpret the law broadly. However, ambiguity remains about whether menopause is covered in all context requiring reasonable accommodations. Both employees and employers would benefit from a more explicit protection so that everyone understands their rights and duties in the context of menopause related request for accommodation. Thank you again for this opportunity to be heard and to testify before you on these very important bills today and I am open for any questions and so is Attorney Kuehler.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. It's always good to know that CHRO is looking at, these proposed bills and it's very helpful to know when you are supportive of them because we know that you're looking at them with a legal opinion, a really an approach to what's important in terms of our stat statutes. And so, I appreciate your being here and testifying today. I don't know if we have any questions for you. Representative Weir?

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony and I'll, I guess, direct my question to whoever is best, able to answer the question. You talked we're talking about the breastfeeding in the workplace portion of, three forty five. I'm looking at the language that I see that it's changed. How does this bring Connecticut's law more in line with the federal law? Through you, madam chair.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Go ahead. So,

[Attorney Michelle Dumas Keuler (CHRO)]: in terms of of bringing in line, we wanna the time and the need to express breast milk during break times may not necessarily line up with one's actual break time and so we wanna make sure that breastfeeding people are able to express their breast milk at a time when it is necessary for them to do that and that they won't receive any sort of punishment from their employer for doing that.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And can I just follow-up quickly? Because I think, Representative Weir, my understanding is that that has been the interpretation on the federal level, but we haven't got it explicitly in our state Mhmm. Statutes. Is that correct?

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Yes. Yeah.

[Cheryl Sharp (Deputy Executive Director, CT Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities)]: And so we the these bills can, you know, say protracted litigation

[Ed Hawthorne (President, Connecticut AFL-CIO)]: Mhmm.

[Cheryl Sharp (Deputy Executive Director, CT Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities)]: When there is an issue where there's some ambiguity, even if we believe as the state agency charged with enforcing the law that it, you know, falls under the statute if if there's this broad interpretation. If the other side has a plausible argument, the defendant has a plausible argument that, well, it's not covered. It's it doesn't broadly cover this, then you get involved in costly litigation. And it's costly for the state, because one of our attorneys will have to go forward and defend the state's position. It becomes costly for the complainant and their counsel, and it's costly for the defendant. So all around, as, you know, unambiguous as our statutes can be, the better for everyone involved because it's less cost than associated with the, litigation of a complaint. Right.

[Attorney Michelle Dumas Keuler (CHRO)]: And this the changes are not to our statute. Our statute has very detailed and encompassing protections for lactating people. And so it's more so a matter of not having any disagreement between the two statutes either because if the cases are before us, that's how we're going to litigate them, which is that a person is able to, express their breast milk at the time they need it, which will be their break as opposed to at what may be a set break time. Everyone's employment is so different as to some employers, the break time is at that time, and others have more flexibility. So it's it's it's more about aligning that too.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yep. Thank you for that answer. I often I appreciate your perspective, the the explanation and also the perspective about clear language because it's often that I, you know, I'm not an attorney, I'm a lay person, and a lot of the bills that not just in the labor committee, but the bills that I see oftentimes have language that I think, and I argue that could be interpreted in more than one way. And I'm, often pushing for, more clarity just because we don't want this to end up in litigation where it's an aggravation for everybody because we didn't do our work up here. So thank you for that perspective and and and also clarifying that that paragraph.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And before I let you go, I noticed, that you cited as, in support of, 34, 355345353. I do wanna note for the record that a number of these bills are also, incorporated both the breastfeeding and the, menopause focused bills are also encompassed in 5,003. So, you might wanna take a look at that, but they are should be identical language at this time. Alright.

[Cheryl Sharp (Deputy Executive Director, CT Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities)]: Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you so much for your testimony. Next up, I know that we have next on our list is May Flexer and Matt Blumenthal. I was notified by both of them that they, will have to testify later in the day as that they have conflicting appointments at this moment. I don't know if Kate Farrar is online. She's the next legislator. All of these legislators are busy with other responsibilities in committee and public hearing. So, we will move on to Liz Linehan and I don't see Liz either. So, we will come back to them when they do become available. And next we have Erica Nolan and I understand that Janelle Grant is going to be testifying with her attorney and it's good to see you both again today. Go right ahead. You have to Gotta hit

[Attorney (Counsel for Janelle Grant)]: the button first. Good morning Chairwoman Kushner, Chairman Sanchez, Ranking Member Samson, Ranking Member Weir, and distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning alongside my client, Miss Janelle Grant. We are testifying in support of race bill Senate Bill three fifty five, an act concerning limitations on the use of nondisclosure agreements. For those who are not familiar with Miss Grant's story, she is a survivor of workplace sexual assault and human trafficking who has been silenced by a non disclosure agreement she was forced to enter into with Vince McMahon and WWE. She's also an incredibly kind, empathetic and brave woman who has endured tremendous trauma at the hands of her abusers and their corporate enablers. This legislation is necessary to ensure that other victims and survivors like Miss Grant are able to confront their abusers without fear of retaliation. To understand why this bill matters, I'd like to share three statistics regarding sexual misconduct in the workplace. Eighty one percent of women and forty three percent of men have experienced some form of sexual harassment in their lifetime. One in three women has faced sexual harassment in the workplace during her career. And an estimated eighty seven to ninety four percent of those who experience sexual harassment never file a formal complaint. Taken together, these statistics demonstrate that sexual misconduct in the workplace is pervasive and disproportionately affects women. In 2022, Congress enacted the Speak Out Act and in doing so codified these same findings directly into federal law at forty two US nineteen thousand four hundred and one. The bill before you today would bring many of those same protections into our state law while also providing meaningful enforcement mechanisms and protections against retaliation. As a civil litigator, I regularly handle cases on behalf of businesses and employers seeking to protect confidential or proprietary business information, trade secrets and similar interests through the use of nondisclosure agreements. This bill does not eliminate or restrict the use of NDAs for those lawful legitimate purposes. What it does instead is prevent NDAs from being used to shield illegal conduct from accountability. For someone bound by an n NDA, intimidation does not have to be loud or obvious. It can be as simple as a letter from a lawyer reminding someone of what they signed. In Miss Grant's case, however, the intimidation has been both loud and obvious. She has faced public retaliation, exposure of her personal information, witness intimidation, and even public mockery on national television of what she experienced. She has effectively been made an example of what can happen to employees who speak out about misconduct, particularly when the employer is one of the largest in Connecticut. This is not about punishing employers, it's about protecting workers here in Connecticut. NDAs may be framed as neutral tools, but when case when using cases involving misconduct, they function primarily to protect the employer, not the employee. It should simply be contrary to the public policy of our state for perpetrators or corporate enablers to silence a victim or witness to an act of discrimination or harassment. This bill gives Connecticut the opportunity to lead by affirming that our state values safe workplaces, values safe workplaces more than silent ones. The national reckoning that has followed the exposure of Jeffrey Epstein's conduct has illustrated a critical lesson. When legal tools are used to enforce silence, they conceal danger rather than prevent it. This bill ensures that our laws will never allow that to happen here in Connecticut. The current text of the raised bill three fifty five incorporates these limitations into the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act or CFEPA. However, that structure would require employees seeking to invalidate oppressive NDAs to first file claims with the CHRO which carries a three hundred day statute of limitations for exhausting administrative remedies. These circumstances of abuse and harassment are simply ill suited to an administrative exhaustion requirement and the compressed timeline creates yet another barrier for survivor seeking justice. Victims and survivors who are subjected to NDAs designed to silence sexual misconduct are often the subjects of coercive control tactics facing leaders with vastly greater resources and power. Studies indicate that up to ninety three percent of individuals signing NDAs and harassment cases experience severe negative mental health consequences and the impact of those consequences of abuse and harassment is further perpetuated in an administrative forum. For example, Ms. Grant was unable to bring any CFIPA claims in her current lawsuit because, among other things, the US Department of Justice asked her not to speak while its investigation was ongoing. By the time it became clear that the DOJ would not act within a meaningful time frame, her deadline to file any employment related claims with the CHRO had long since passed. I respectfully ask the committee to consider going one step further by carving out NDA related claims from the CHRO's jurisdiction, which would not eliminate remedies, but would instead allow survivors to proceed directly to court and avoid procedural barriers that often prevent claims from being heard on the merits. Race Bill three fifty five is a crucial step toward helping victims and survivors of workplace misconduct reclaim their voices. It acknowledges the extraordinary obstacles they face and provides the legal framework necessary for accountability and healing. I respectfully urge this committee to pass this bill and help ensure that what happened to miss Grant does not happen to others across Connecticut. Thank you for your time.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I don't see any quest I have a few, comments and questions. First of all, thank you for being here, both of you. And I know I had the opportunity to meet you, miss Grant. It's okay if I'll call you Janelle. Yes. I met you, previously and I at the press conference we had recently and I I said to you then, and I'll I wanna repeat it, that it's really important that you've come out and been public about what happened to you because I think too many of us feel like it's a hidden problem. It's yet it's, as you mentioned in your testimony, really pervasive. I I didn't say this at the pub at the, press conference, but I was thinking it. And I think if we asked the women in this room to raise their hand, I'm not gonna do that because we're in a public hearing, but if we asked you to raise your hand if you'd ever been sexually, inappropriately touched or assaulted, or harassed, I would bet either at work or outside of work, I would venture to say almost every woman in the room would raise their hand. This is pervasive. And one of the things that I I really haven't forgotten since the day you testified, I've really been thinking about this a lot and I believe the only way we can stop this is to make sure that people are protected and have the opportunity to disclose this. It's really critical. I think we all thought when the Me Too movement was really big a few years ago and everybody was speaking up that we had made some real progress and then I feel like we're stuck again. So what you did by coming forward has made a huge difference in getting people like me to think about this and to talk about it and and hopefully to enact legislation that will make it possible for you to share your story, but also to get results. So what you're doing is incredibly important. I don't know if you wanna respond to that.

[Attorney (Counsel for Janelle Grant)]: Thank you, Senator Kushner. We appreciate it very much.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And if Janelle would like to speak, she can.

[Janelle Grant]: I don't want to see one more person raped on a table by two people with all the power in daylight behind a locked door while people sat on their desks, working still on the other side of that door. I will not for a second waste anyone's time. We all say trade secrets when it comes to NDAs as being the thing, the go to line of why they're so appropriate. And there are so many messy situations on planet Earth, like, with humans that there are good, legitimate reasons outside of trade secrets. Again, This is this is just where if you let me serve as your rock bottom, your starting place for building so that this doesn't happen to somebody else. And that was just one day within three almost three years of time. That's not what NDAs are designed for. And given that as I spoke on the nineteenth, so many things happened before I actually filed a lawsuit. If you enacted even some safeguards, arguably speaking, you would not only be protecting me, but you would actually have something more reliable for the other person entering into an NDA. Otherwise, as my situation would demonstrate, they are completely unreliable and whatever you think that they do or don't do, the one related to me is just firing off in all directions. But again, I use that visual because that is in my complaint. But that was also just in the middle of a work day.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. And I know it's hard to share these stories and but it's important. And, I do think the only way to stop this kind of, this assault going forward is really to make sure that people in your position do have rights and are able to pursue those rights. I I know that we had testimony a few minutes ago from the CHRO. I would encourage you since you're all here to have some conversation about, you know, where your, what what you're trying to accomplish, I think, is aligned. But I know that you have different approaches to it. So I would encourage you to have those conversations so you can help guide us, in the weeks going forward. So any other questions or comments? Thank you.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Madam Madam Chair?

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I I forget sometimes to look online. We do have folks participating online. Representative Hughes.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for your testimony. Again, I was so moved on the nineteenth that you came to help us as policymakers, create policy that does is not there's no longer complicit in a culture of abuse. And I feel like what you are speaking to is a culture that has normalized abuse of power and abuse of behavior that people know are unaccountable. And so in as policymakers, what we tend to do is respond to try to fix something. And I'm just wondering if you could may wave a magic wand beyond the NDA restricting or banning it, which was used as a tool to silence abuse and to keep powerful people from being held to account, what would that magic wand of culture change look like?

[Janelle Grant]: Oh, do you want me to start?

[Attorney (Counsel for Janelle Grant)]: Let me let me just, address one additional portion that I think, it's not addressed in this bill, but, one of the other barriers to entry for victims and survivors like Miss Grant is the use of mandatory mandatory arbitration agreements, which forces victims directly into private, arbitration and so their claims will never see the light of day. It's our position in Miss Grant's suit that that NDA as well as a mandatory arbitration clause is unenforceable under Connecticut law already, but that is another barrier to entry for victims and survivors. But Janelle, I'll let you address.

[Janelle Grant]: One of the magic wands would potentially be, when the culture becomes such that, let's say predatory behavior in any environment is normalized, the additional controls that could be put in place, safety measures, let's say with some outside source that can provide screeners that can look for coercive control tactics, that perhaps the kind of culture that such harm would be possible in is not the culture that can possibly clean themselves up either. That, if you were to throw, for instance, an investigation into allegations of harm without speaking to the person who allegedly got harmed, I mean, it seems to be like you are throwing a spectacle that is not going to change anything to simply make a workplace safer, better, more appropriate. But just to think that you can potentially walk into a place to contribute to work and not really ever be free to leave because either you're under an NDA or you might be watching somebody under an NDA like me get punished, get intimidated. You're being taught exactly what you will expect if you ever breathe a word and address your harm. This past week alone, I filed a police report because I noticed some intimidation tactics online playing out that were potentially going to, you know, pose a threat and jeopardize my safety in some way that I could not ignore. I called the police. They took a report. The officer reached out to WWE and to the state when I got the report yesterday, WWE did not return the police officer's phone call. I care very much about the people working and living in fear, but that includes former employees who are also in the same boat. And so there's a holistic change that needs to happen and an education and perhaps coercive control and additional programs that are independent of a company might be a good way to start. But what you're doing with this legislation is so important just even emblematically. A start point, if you just simply allow me to be, where it all broke, where it all needed to break for something to finally start building in a way that's constructive that is good for both the employee and the employer. You know, just something more reliable, just, a start point instead of just talking. I mean, actually, the act of talking, we're bringing it to light. We're doing something today. That's, you can't do anything unless you first talk about it. Right? So I really do thank

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: you for your

[Janelle Grant]: time, and that's a wonderful question you asked. So thank you for your

[Representative Anne Hughes]: question. Well, thank you so much, for giving us the opportunity to, address the harm. And I am so sorry that not only that this happened to you, but that you continue to suffer harm at the hands of powerful people and systems that have been complicit in that harm. And thank you for giving us the opportunity to at least address in one small part in harmony a way to break the cycle. Thank you.

[Janelle Grant]: Thank you. Thank you

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: both for being here today.

[Attorney (Counsel for Janelle Grant)]: Thank you. Thank you all.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, I see that we've been joined, by Representative Liz Lenahan.

[Representative Liz Linehan]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize. I'm having some sort of, technical difficulties, so you can't see me. But, I promise you I am here and not in my pajamas. So so thank you very much for allowing me, to be here today even if it is virtually with these problems. But, to you, madam chair and cochair Sanchez, vice chairs Wilson and Cabrera, ranking members Weir and Sampson, and my distinguished colleagues of the Labor Committee, thank you for raising house bill five three eight six, an act concerning paycheck transparency. This legislation will require that employees' pay stubs are easily readable and readily understood by the workers earning their pay and in some cases, prevent an employer from paying out large sums of money to employees because mistakes are found and remedied after a long period of time. The issue at hand are differentials. Differentials are any rate of pay, which is in addition to standard hourly wages. They're commonplace in the health care industry. And for example, someone may make a base wage of about $20 an hour, but receive an additional $2 per hour for the night shift, another $1 per hour for weekends, time and a half for overtime, or hours worked eight hours during a twelve hour shift, and yet even another set of differentials for training another worker on that shift. And believe it or not, that same worker may receive all of those separate differentials on top of their base rate of pay for that same single shift. It can get very confusing. And to further complicate matters, all those differentials are given pay codes, most often codes which are not intuitive to their meaning, making it difficult to decipher their correlating terms, and therefore near impossible for a worker to determine if their pay is in fact correct. Now imagine you are a minimum wage employee who may not have finished high school and perhaps English is your second language. There are a lot of steps to that one worker's rate of pay, making it prone to human error, And as I just pointed out, easily misunderstood and difficult to check. And whether this is intentional by the employer or not, mistakes like that can easily add up to wage theft of thousands of dollars per year per employee. And while researching the issue, I spoke to employees or the representatives in Waterbury, Cheshire, Wolcott, Meriden, Norwalk, Danbury, Southington, New Britain, Milford, and Hartford. I spoke with minimum wage food service workers and advanced degree nurses making more than $40 an hour in their base wage, and not one single health care worker dismissed the issue. All employees noted that the reading and understanding of their pay stubs and the coding of differentials, overtime, and PTO were a huge problem. And all employees I spoke with surmised that they were likely underpaid more than once in their career. When I was here last year to testify, I did mention that there was an ongoing issue with a third party vendor inside Norwalk Hospital. Approximately 70 workers noticed that their paychecks were significantly less than they should be, all due to these detailed reports that have pay codes that they couldn't understand. And I will tell you that while this went on in December 2024, here we are in, March 2026, and these issues still have not been fully rectified, and these workers have not received their back pay. Employees are working unpaid. Employers are withholding wages. Their representatives must painstakingly investigate, restitution once it's resolved if it ever gets resolved, and it should not get to this point. Let this be a cautionary tale which prompts you to take action. By passing this legislation, we can help to ensure that this isn't an issue moving forward and that we can empower workers to know if they're receiving what is rightfully theirs. I thank you very much for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions regarding this legislation.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. I don't see any hands. I appreciate that you are, that you persevere, that you've raised this last year, and, unfortunately, we weren't able to get it done. So I'm glad that you're back here to this year, and we'll see what we can do. But you raised an important issue, so thank you for bringing it forward.

[Representative Liz Linehan]: Thank you, madam chairwoman. And if I may, I believe you are also hearing 5,003 today?

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That's correct.

[Representative Liz Linehan]: Thank you very much for your work on that. I just wanna take a moment to get something on record that while, I absolutely agree with the bill, I think, it it is a wonderful piece of legislation to begin with. I wanted to make mention that a lot of, health care workers that don't care for patients at the bedside, like cafeteria workers, maintenance crew, they are also subject, unfortunately, to the same issues as bedside care, and their safety is is at risk. So I ask that the committee remember that when drafting the final piece of legislation.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. And, since I will take advantage of the fact that you are a representative here in the building, and if you wouldn't mind making sure that we have a note about that, to our clerk, Cameron Clark, that would be helpful.

[Representative Liz Linehan]: I absolutely will, and I'll include it in my written testimony. Thank you so much, madam chairwoman.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Next

[Speaker 13]: up,

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think Rebecca Martinez. I had heard you were coming down here, but I see you're online. So we'll go ahead with you. Thank you. Representative Martinez.

[Rebecca Martinez]: Thank you. So the co chairs, vice chairs, ranking members, and members of the labor committee for raising house bill five zero zero three. My name is Rebecca Martinez and I'm here in strong support of house bill five zero zero three. The death of my coworker Joyce Grayson deeply affected not only our organization but healthcare providers across the state. It brought into focus the very real risk health care workers face simply by doing their jobs. Section three addresses a serious gap. Health care workers document when a patient is violent, but when that patient changes care settings, that critical safety information does not reliably follow them. Adding a safety alert to the statewide health information exchange ensures that this information travels with the patient so health care workers can plan, prepare, and protect themselves and their patients. Section six addresses another safety concern. Health care workers are often forced to park blocks away due to local restrictions. When a patient becomes threatening or violent, a health care worker must be able to exit quickly and reach their vehicle. They shouldn't have to choose between parking tickets at their safety. Section 11 ensures the spouse of a volunteer firefighter killed in the line of duty can have access to the state health insurance plan for up to five years. In July, Plainville lost firefighter Monroe in the light of line of duty. No grieving spouse should have to worry about losing health insurance or paying a 100% of the premium after such a devastating loss. House bill five zero zero three is about the basics and should already be in place. It's unfortunate that in 2026, we still have to ask for safety at work, fair pay, basic dignity. But I'm grateful to this committee for working because our working people deserve so much better. Health care workers and educators need to be safe. Personal care assistants need to be paid on time. Workers need to earn at least minimum wage and be paid in full. Women's health is not a workplace inconvenience. It's a workplace reality, and employers must plan accordingly. If we want a strong public safety, we must support recruitment and retention. Five zero zero three helps ensure that police officers and firefighters are supported, educated, and able to live in the communities that they serve. These are not luxuries. These are basic fundamentals. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you to move this important legislation forward. Thank you so much, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. I don't see any hands. So we appreciate you being here and getting that on the record. Next up, I believe is I think we're moving to the to Ed Hawthorne number 10 on the list. We're moving along.

[Ed Hawthorne (President, Connecticut AFL-CIO)]: Good morning, Senator Kushner, Representative Weir, Representative Gauthier, other distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Ed Hawthorne. I'm proud to serve as the president of the Connecticut AFL CIO, Federation of the Unions representing approximately 250,000 working people here in the state of Connecticut. It's on their behalf. I testify for several bills here today. You have my written testimony and I'll do my best to get through four. First one is SB three five eight an act concerning the retention of service contract workers Building service workers, cleaners, security officers, maintenance staff have no legal right to keep their jobs when a building owner switches contractors or sells the property. Workers

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: who

[Ed Hawthorne (President, Connecticut AFL-CIO)]: have spent years, years serving the same building and their tenants can be displaced overnight with no notice, no transition no opportunity to continue their employment. Job loss is always destabilizing but being blindsided makes the harm far worse. What this bill does it provides that building owners are to provide advance notice to employees when a service contract will change, requires incoming contractors to retain the existing workforce for a ninety day transition period, and it gives the workers a fair chance to demonstrate their value and stay in that same building that they may have spent decades in before. It reduces turnover, it minimizes disruption, and it also saves money by reducing onboarding, training, and recruitment costs, which is good for the building owners. It goes into alignment with other states. California, New Jersey, and Delaware have already proven this to be workable and beneficial for workers in those states. Next is SB three fifty two, a net concerning, fair minimum, fair wage in persons employed at cannabis establishments. Cannabis workers are not tipped workers. However some cannabis companies here in the state have put out a tip jar and attempted to claim that they are tipped workers. We've clarified this through DOL. We believe a statute definitely clarifying this and making sure it doesn't happen again is worthwhile endeavor because it could open the door to wage theft, and that's not something any of us would like to see. Next is SB three fifty five, an act concerning limitations to non disclosure agreements. I mean, originally, they're designed for legitimate trade secrets. As we've heard earlier, they're used in sexual harassment complaints, complaints and settlements, non disparagement clauses, it restricts workers' free speech. I mean, when employees cannot speak openly, creatively, innovation and morale suffer and employers lose valuable feedback that could change the operations that may be preceded to have that person separate from employment. We should protect workers and that's a great bill to do so. And lastly, SB three forty eight, workers compensation coverage for public works employees with PTSI. Psychological injuries caused by traumatic events are real work injuries. Just because you can't see it doesn't make them unreal. We've done a good job at updating these reforms over the years. Public work employees respond to fatal accidents, severe injuries, structural collapses, and other traumatic scenes. Often they are the first people on-site for these type of emergencies. This bill corrects an inequity by recognizing the reality of the work they face, continuing to expand PTSI coverage. One occupation at a time is inefficient. We think it should be for every occupation. The legislator should extend this PTSI coverage to all workers so that every person who experiences trauma on the job can access the care they need and deserve and get back to work sooner. Thank you very much. Be happy. And also to put in there since I haven't been buzzed yet, HB 5,003 has a lot of great stuff in it and we urge support of that bill as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I Representative Weir.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you, Ed, for your testimony. Good to see you up there.

[Ed Hawthorne (President, Connecticut AFL-CIO)]: Good to see

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: you too.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I wanna just focus, you know, you got of the four or five bills that you mentioned, the retention of the service contract workers through I've seen this three five eight. And, you know, I've struggled with the concept now. I'm seeing the language. You know, logistically speaking, what do you say to the I understand that there's a concern for the outgoing employees that that notification, you know, that, hey, the contract is up, today's Friday, tomorrow's our last date, you're not gonna be here Monday. I get that that is, certainly problematic and, could be or a shock to a a an employee receiving that message. What do you say to the, how or how would we solve for the contract begins Monday, the other, the new company has a whole new group of employees that are expecting to show up to work. How do we what would you say to how would that be mitigated so that you, you know, you don't have room for double the employees? So how do you what do you say to the new workers who are gonna potentially be not having a place to report when that new contract starts? Well, if this bill Madam Chair.

[Ed Hawthorne (President, Connecticut AFL-CIO)]: Sorry. If this bill goes into place, they would know not to have those new workers showing up on that Monday following, that there would be a ninety day transition period so that they can actually save costs by not having new onboarding. People already know the building, already know what's going on in there, and maybe have worked there for decades. So in essence, it's approve your worth in a ninety day probationary period to have them stay in that building. And you know when you're purchasing a building a lot goes into that. And they should know not to have that new workforce show up so they wouldn't be paying two people at the same time. They would be able to evaluate the employees they have already, and potentially have that cost savings of not having that, you know, transition period where, you know, they're trying to onboard, train, the recruitment costs of maintaining, you know, or trying to get new workers to come in there. So actually, it'd be a cost saving measure there.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, mister, representative Weir.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: But I would like to continue if I may.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Go ready.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So I I I think we you know, having had employees, you know, where you buy I have not purchased a building where employees came with the with the building, and I can't say that I have. But I know that, I can speak for our vetting process, our background check, the core values that we impressed upon our employees in terms of what type of you know, what was the core of the business, and not every business is the same. So Mhmm. I don't really have a question. I'll say, you know, I'm admitting to struggling with this that that company a may be vastly different from how company b operates, and then to say that that company you know, the purchasing company or the first the the company that takes over the contract has to, you know, automatically take over those employees for and only for a short period of time, potentially. So, that's that's what I'm struggling with, but I will give it more thought. We can continue to have these conversations. Testimony.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Seeing no other hands. Thank you for your testimony today.

[Ed Hawthorne (President, Connecticut AFL-CIO)]: Thank you all.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up we have online Carrie Hona.

[Carrie Honan (Union representative)]: Hi. Good morning.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Good morning.

[Carrie Honan (Union representative)]: Thank you for allowing me to to speak with you remotely today. It is a snow day here in, in Torrington. I am here to express strong support of s b three thirty two, an act concerning the minimum fair wage and persons employed at cannabis establishments, as well as the language in House Bill five zero zero three. When Connecticut first legalized adult use cannabis nearly five years ago, one of the main goals was to create a new industry with family sustaining jobs. And since then, licensed cannabis establishments have hired hundreds of workers across our state to cultivate and dispense cannabis. And many of those workers have chosen union representation and have negotiated first contracts. A couple of years ago, while bargaining a first contract for newly unionized group of dispensary workers, the state minimum wage increased to 15.69 in the middle of bargaining and their employer refused to raise the base wage, not only for the unionized workers, but for employees at nonunion dispensaries as well. The company claimed it could pay a subminimum wage because employees receive tips. And in the cannabis industry in Connecticut, it's true that dispensary workers may receive tips, but there's no formal way that it's done. No generally accepted percentage paid. There's not even paid from every customer. Tips are received much in the manner that tips are received by employees working the register at Panera or Starbucks, and those workers are paid at least the standard minimum wage. Under Connecticut statute, only the restaurant and hospitality industries are recognized as employees who as employing workers who regularly and customarily receive gratuities. Those employers may pay a subminimum wage, but only under strict regulations with detailed record keeping and with the obligation to make up any shortfall of tips don't bring workers to the full minimum wage. A single cannabis employer doesn't get to unilaterally decide that it belongs in that category. It was only after their union filed dozens of wage theft complaints with the DOL that this employer agreed to provide back pay, but it took ten long months for workers to be paid what they were legally owed. Unionized dispensary workers have now raised their wages above the state minimum through collective bargaining, but not every cannabis worker has a union and no workers have to file a wage complaint and wait months just to receive the minimum wage guaranteed by law. This law simply clarifies, which should already be clear, cannabis employees must be paid the full state minimum wage. Because if we're serious about equity in this industry, that has to include worker equity, and part of that is making the law clear. So I I really do urge you to support this legislation. And listening to the representative speak about House Bill fifty three eighty six, I just want to throw my support behind that as well. I am a union representative for employers in many industries, and some of them are in health care. And I can attest to having to do, like, algebraic equations to explain many of the differentials that that folks have. And it's complicated even for myself sometimes to explain what's on someone's paycheck because it isn't listed in words. Often it is an employer code. So thank you for that as well.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you so much for your testimony here today. I don't see any questions but I appreciate your testimony. Thank you.

[Amber De Souza (Registered Nurse, Backus Hospital)]: Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I see that we've been joined by Representative Harrar so we will call her next.

[Representative Kate Farrar]: Good morning, madam chair. Great to see you and the members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am here today in front of you in relation to supporting House Bill five three eight seven. And I am just very grateful, first off, for the committee raising this bill. I have come before you a number of years in our work to close the wage gap and support so many workers and families across the state. I'm very pleased to see this. And I think generally, I just wanted to comment that I know it sometimes can seem like a topic, you know, why are we continuously talking about, the wage gap in our state? And the reason this is so pivotal is that, here in Connecticut, we know from our census data that women working full time year round are still only making 83¢ to the dollar of men. And sadly, in our country, in the last two years, the wage gap has expanded, which really puts on us as a legislature what more could we be doing. And when we think about the impact of the wage gap in the day to day lives of our constituents, it really comes through in what dollars they have to support themselves, to support them, their families, to pay off student loan debt, and to spend that money in our local economy. And, you know, as a state, we have definitely made progress, you know, over the last few years in closing the wage gap. But according to the latest data, Connecticut is twenty second in the country right now with our wage gap. And so I know we like to think much higher of ourselves, than twenty second. And this is why this approach with this House bill is one more thing we can do to close the wage gap. I just wanted to comment personally for me as to why this has been a passion of mine, for now decades. I will tell you that as a young woman graduating from UConn here in the state of Connecticut, when I first went out in the workforce, it was the first time that I started to understand what the wage gap was. I started to understand that for myself, I didn't have a true understanding of salary negotiation, of the circumstances that would really set me up potentially for earning less than my male colleagues right out of college. For many years, I actually trained other women on salary negotiation as a tool in this toolbox of addressing the wage gap. But I soon learned that, you know, that was just one of the pieces that was so needed to close this gap. And salary negotiation is only effective if you actually might have a sense or know what salary you were negotiating. And that's why in 2021, when we passed legislation here in the state, we actually passed legislation around the disclosure of salary ranges. But the issue I can tell you in speaking with young people today is that they often don't know that they can ask for that salary range. And that's why I really truly think that as Connecticut, we can step up like many other states have to make sure that those salary ranges are available. Since I last testified on this, we have even more states. So now New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, California, and Washington have all passed laws requiring the salary ranges for job positions. And I can tell you also for myself as an employer, I voluntarily use salary ranges because they are so effective at making sure that you are a good fit and matching with what that potential employee wants and needs. And we know from the data that many folks in the workforce right now are looking for that type of information to make sure that this is a right fit for them and the economic circumstances of their family. I will be submitting testimony to you all, in writing as well because, again, I really appreciate this proposal. But I do have, two recommendations to the language that I did wanna make. One in reference to line 21, to maintain the language of comparable, which is helpful for, just the legal framework of the bill. And then secondly, language in lines 81 to 83, referring to alternative methods of recruiting. This is important, I would say, to remove from the bill because there are examples in other states who have passed this similar legislation, where employers are using this language around alternative methods to get around posting the salary range. So for instance, they're using third party sites that, they're considering an alternative method or they are using AI and individual messages to potential employees to get around the requirement. But again, I thoroughly thank you for raising this. And, for me personally, I certainly hope this is one step forward we can take to make, fairer wages for so many of our women across the state and make sure that they have the economic stability for their future. So thank you so much, Madam Chair, and to the entire committee.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. And I, appreciate the changes that you articulated. If you would make sure that, those are brought to the attention of our clerk, that will be helpful as we look forward to, the next steps on this piece of the next steps on this piece of legislation. So thank you so much. I see two hands. I'm gonna go first to ranking member, representative Weir.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And thank you for your testimony. I I made notes of your suggestion, for language changes based on, based on your observation. It's my recollection that last year when we talked about this, mine's 8081 to 83. Mhmm. Talking about the alternative method that if somebody about the alternative method that if somebody this wasn't using the intent, as I recall, their example that I've heard was not necessarily somebody using a third party, but it was somebody who may post a help wanted sign at the front, and all that information may not fit on a help wanted sign at that advertisement. That's that was the example I recall being given. So I think if we're going to take that language, your suggestion into place that we give consideration for somebody who's not using an online method, you know, maybe it's on a cork board at the front. I don't know. I, you know, that that's probably real old school and I'm sure most people are using Indeed, but I think we don't wanna have a chance. We wanna be clear with what the intent of the bill is. So thank you.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Thank you, representative.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I also see a hand. Representative Hughes.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to my good colleague for testifying. I think what's changed since we heard this before our committee last year is exactly what you referred to as the, the accelerated use of AI. And, and I would just ask, the opposition that we heard is that people can already ask about the salary range, but I I thought I would give you a chance to say a little bit more about when a prospective employee is applying, even though the a, they may know that they can ask, talk a little bit about the imbalance of power when you're trying to get a job and and especially for women that are always feeling unqualified even when we're overqualified. Can you speak about that?

[Representative Kate Farrar]: Thank you, representative Hughes. I I think you're raising for many of us in that room that pit in our stomach when we've had to go through the interview process for any position and the intimidation that can often go with that dynamic, especially when you're interviewing for a job that you might desperately need for your own economic stability and for your families. It is a very uncomfortable and potential intimidating circumstance. And unfortunately, it's not just intimidating, but the research still bears out that women and people of color, you know, continually face bias in those circumstances when they might be negotiating for a compensation package. So the more that we can take out of those circumstances, that sense of intimidation or concern about potentially, again, losing losing an opportunity because you're asking too many questions or again, taking out, that circumstance that we're all in where our biases kick in, is really better for the employer and the employee.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you, madam chair. And just one more, question. I also raised the issue of trying to find a good fit and not waste each other's time on both the employer and the employees about the actual process these days of applying. Like, when you get how far into spending time on that process of first interview, a second interview, a third interview. Can you speak to that? Because that also has accelerated since we heard this testimony last year.

[Representative Kate Farrar]: It really has. And I would say also in speaking to any number of young people coming out of college who are applying for hundreds of positions, you know, obviously, they're spending hours every week pursuing particular job opportunities. You know, in speaking with them, you know, they're they're desperate to make sure that these are even positions they would wanna pursue based on, the compensation. And then again, on the employer side, you know, the more time that you invest in any search and you end up with a candidate at the end that says that this salary range isn't a good fit, you know, you've wasted precious time as an employer. And again, as someone who was an employer and made this decision a couple of years in to use salary ranges, it really changed, the ability for me to maximize my time as an executive director and the time of other staff in interviewing people for positions.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for your testimony.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative.

[Representative Kate Farrar]: Thank you all. Really appreciate it. So look forward to working with you on this. Enjoy the rest of your hearing day.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Next up we have Brian Mezick. Good morning.

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of Connecticut)]: Good morning. Good morning Senator Kushner and Representative Weir represent Wilson members of the labor and public employees committee. It's good to be here and see you all today. My name is Brian Mezick. I'm a Connecticut state marshal. I'm president of the state marshals association of Connecticut, and I am speaking in support. And I'll just be brief this morning on house bill five zero zero three, particularly on section 12. As you know, state marshals, we are involved in all sorts of, dangerous and not pleasant things. We execute, capias minimus warrants, which are generally concerning back to child support for our family courts. We also, serve all the restraining orders and protective orders in the state of Connecticut. We execute evictions amongst other things. And our safety is an issue, for us. One of my colleagues, a friend of mine, he was shot on the job, executing a warrant in Bridgeport. He easily could have died. This committee has worked on some of those issues rectifying insurance for us and whatnot. But it's definitely a concern for us. We're in dangerous situations. Just late last year, one of my members executed an eviction in Stanford, and the guy had pipe bombs on the inside of the house. There was a shootout with the police. There was somebody killed inside the home. It was well documented within the media. So, I mean, these are the kind of environments that marshals walk into because court orders require it, and we're doing our job. So under current law, families of police officers and firefighters, they're covered, health insurance as a survivor benefit. So we're very pleased that this committee has included in section, 12 of the workforce bill, a survivor health benefit for state marshals. In recent years, we've had difficulty recruiting people to get into these jobs. So, it's definitely an important recruitment tool knowing that that benefit is there, but I think also, particularly, I just wanna thank this committee. It sends a strong signal that our work is appreciated and valued in the state. We don't often get, thank yous for our work, not from our agency. We do get this from this committee. That's why I do enjoy coming in here, but I think it's an it's really a practical important morale issue knowing that it's there. This benefit may never need to be used. We hope it is never used. But if needed, a marshal's family shouldn't have to worry about how they're gonna have insurance after that event. So we thank you very much for your work here on all these issues. And, I'm here happy to answer any questions if, if you them.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. And it's always good to see you because you are so nice to us every time we see you because we have taken your concerns to heart. And I know we've made some progress in various ways. You testified last week about workers' compensation, and I think that those are two areas that we wanna address for the state marshals this session. I will let you know that we did receive some correspondence on this issue, that you're testifying on today, from the comptroller's office about the benefits you currently have. So I would just encourage you and your representatives to, get in touch with us, and maybe work with our clerk to make sure that we have, the right language in in this statute, in the proposed bill, so that we're addressing the the need that you have. So I know we need to do a little more work on this, but appreciate your participation here and the opportunity to let you know, let's keep working on this.

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Appreciate it.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any other comments? Questions? Great. Thank you so much.

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of Connecticut)]: And I hope everyone else is as nice is also nice to you today as the hearing goes on.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Me too. It's always nice. I see you're followed by Louis Sullivan.

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of Connecticut)]: He couldn't make it today.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: He couldn't make it. Okay. Great. So next up, we have Rochelle Palache. And, Rochelle is representing thirty two BJ. And I know we've arranged for a panel of, workers to follow, Rochelle. And so if you would get get ready to come up, following her testimony. I think everybody is, here that will be coming up after president president Palacio.

[Rochelle Palache (VP & CT State Director, SEIU 32BJ)]: Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, senator Kushner and representative Sanchez in his absence and the distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rochelle Palachi, and I'm vice president and Connecticut state director for SEIU thirty two BJ. I'm here to speak on behalf of our union in support of House Bill five zero zero three and Senate Bill three five eight, the Connecticut Service Workers Retention Act. Thirty two BJ represents over a 185,000 members up and down the East Coast, around 4,500 essential property service workers in Connecticut, including janitorial, security, and other workers that keep Connecticut offices, schools, and event spaces, and other facilities running. Our members are predominantly workers of color and immigrants who have worked tirelessly to improve job standards in industries characterized by low wages and high turnover. As a union, we are committed to making life better for working families, and we fight for a world where everyone is treated with fundamental respect and dignity. On behalf of our members and for the service workers covered by this bill, I urge you to pass the Connecticut Service Workers Retention Law. The act would ensure that existing workers have a chance to prove themselves to their new employer for a ninety day transition period after a new employer takes over a job site and and protect high quality experienced workers from arbitrary termination when a contract changes, hands, or services are in house or outsourced. In the property service industry, contracts turn over at a high rate, and services may also be in house or outsourced with little or no notice to the employees. Right now, long standing high quality workers in Connecticut can lose their jobs with no notice for if a low road contractor decides to trade in on quality to save on labor costs. Worker retention laws are not a new solution to this problem. California, New Jersey, Delaware, and over 20 localities across The US have passed worker retention laws. These laws can help maintain continuity and quality in the services that the public receives, while minimizing needless job losses that put financial strain on the individual workers, their families, and their communities. Laws protecting workers from displacement also have a precedence here in Connecticut. The state's standard wage law which sets a wage and benefits floor for workers on state contracts has a worker retention provision very similar to the one in this bill. Many workers in this industry live paycheck to paycheck. They often support families that may lose their ability to pay rent and access critical benefits like health care if they are unfairly terminated. We have seen several instances in which an employee in good standing who has cared for a building for years or even decades has lost their job overnight for reasons beyond their control. We also understand the need for a certain level of managerial control. That's why this legislation is modeled after a successful laws in other 32 b j jurisdictions that provide a limited set of protections for a uniquely vulnerable workforce for a time limited period. Critically, this law would give existing workers the chance to prove themselves for a new contractor while also ensuring that workers have enough time to seek new jobs if needed. The bill would also require that employers notify workers of the impending employer change, which would help workers navigate their changing employment situation with dignity while imposing only a minimal burden on employers. Local thirty two BJ's experience in other jurisdictions have passed worker retention laws and have found that this is a win for workers, consumers, and employers alike. A worker retention law would serve to raise standards for all Connecticut residents by bringing the small minority of low road contractors into step with the existing standards. Our communities benefit when we can rely on continuity of services provided by the staff who serve the buildings where they live and work. Plus, experienced workers' knowledge of the building and its residents make them equipped to respond to emergencies. Thank you again for your attention to these critical bills and your support for Connecticut working families.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you so much for your testimony. I I know you have with you, Sarah Liebenstein. Lieberstein. Lieberstein. Lieberstein. I should know your name. I worked with you so many years ago. But it's good that you're here. You're on our agenda, later, but I think it will help be helpful if you wanna add any comments regarding how this has worked in other states.

[Sarah Leiberstein (SEIU 32BJ)]: Sure. And I also heard obviously the the questions from representative Weir earlier and our colleague from the AFL did an excellent job answering them, but maybe I can, add some additional detail to the response. You, first posed a concern about an incoming contractor wanting to bring their own workforce into a new building where they've just assumed the contract. And I want to make a couple of points in response to that question. First of all, security and cleaning contractors, like the ones, we work with in the union are very labor intensive businesses. They very rarely have a reserve group of workers who's on payroll just waiting to be assigned to a new work site, nor do they have workers who are on standby. This is, you know, as we've already heard, the workers are, you know, relatively, low wage, and generally are not sitting around waiting to to be employed. So it is industry practice for contractors to take on the workers who are already employed at the work site. Those, you know, as as we've already heard, those workers are trained, they know their way around the building. They may know that there is, for example, a tenant with a wheelchair on the 3rd Floor, and that's the first person who needs to to get out of the building in case of a fire, for example. There's really just a handful of bad actors we see who don't already assume the workforce that's skilled experienced and knows their way around the building. So it's in those cases that we need to provide safeguards against new employers who for whatever purposes, you know, they wanna cut pay for example, want to dis displace the entire workforce overnight, without giving the existing workers a chance to prove themselves. And in fact, I'd I'd say that anecdotally, we have members who have worked at the same job sites for years and years and years and cycled through multiple contractors. They know the facility really well. They're part of the institution and it's a contractor that changes, but they stay on and they're a member of the community and well respected, at that work site. You also posed a question about how this law might, interfere with, building owners flexibility if they wanted to, to sell the building or switch contractors. You know, as we've said already, an incoming contractor or if it's the building management company itself that that wants to in source the work, can under this law still dismiss workers for cause. So if a new contractor comes in and has heard that there's issues with performance in the building, they have an opportunity to see who's doing their job and may let someone go if they're not showing up. This law is just making sure that that new contractor can't come in and clean house without knowing whether each individual worker is capable of doing their job and fulfilling their duties. And secondly, as, Rochelle had said, you know, we've passed these laws in multiple states in many different cities and at the county level across these coast. The laws have had no measurable impact on the commercial real estate industry in those places. We've had this on the book for years and years in New York City. It has not made much of a difference at all. I mean, it's it's made a huge difference to the workers. It's it has a huge benefit to the affected workers. It does not impede commercial real estate. We've seen no measurable impact. Building services are already such a small fraction of a facility's overall operating costs and these laws don't add any cost to the building services. So as I said, I think in some it's a huge benefit to the small number of workers who are displaced or would be displaced in any given year, but it really has a very negligible impact on the industries because keeping on the existing workers is already the industry practice and really there's no costs, or, or de minimis costs associated with compliance with the bill. Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for thank you for adding, that insight. I will say that, I as I mentioned this morning, we had this happen in Danbury about a year ago, maybe a little more than a year ago, where workers were let go. All 14 workers at Arca were let go when a new contractor was brought in and it caused tremendous disruption in our community. With those workers, some of them as much as twenty years of service in that building, had less I think they had two weeks notice after twenty years of service to this, to this business. The business had changed ownership as well. And now they were bringing in a new contractor. Ultimately, it was resolved, but it took months and months and months and it shouldn't have had and during that, which time those workers were out of work. And so it shouldn't have taken that long. So hopefully, this is something that we can address because it has an impact not just on those workers, but on the entire community. When people are out of work, they rely on other services to feed their families. They run out of rent money. It has a ripple effect in our community and our economy. So, I I hope that we'll be able to get this done. I particularly wanna emphasize something you said, Sarah, which I had heard from another, major employer, in Connecticut who was not opposed to this bill. But this happens really frequently where the contractors change, but the workers remain the same. And that's probably more common than the instance that we experienced in Danbury. So if it can work for all those other companies, then I'm not sure what the real problem here is except, you know, a desire to really, maybe bid low and come in, underbid other contractor and come in with, workers that would have lower wages, no benefits, which of course doesn't help our communities as well. So I don't know if that I see representative, we're thinking about all that. I don't know if you I can tell when you're thinking. I've sat next to you quite a few years now. I don't know if we have any questions at this time. I don't see any hands, but I know you'll be available if we need further information. So thank you for coming. And now I would like to ask the panel of workers to come up now and we'll hear their portion of this from their perspective. And so I will ask, Manuel Estrada, Ciro Gutierrez. I hope I pronounce this right. Shot Shotille? I don't you'll have to tell me how to pronounce your name, Ramirez and Marta Martel. So I know we might need a few more chairs. You can sit around the side there. Did I get everybody? I think that's the right group of folks. Great. So please, I think that March is going to begin. So if you'll, just I know March is going to be addressing us in Spanish, and then we'll hear the translation. Go right ahead. No? Thank you. And now, to translate, I just wanna have on the record your Mike Martinez. Is that correct?

[Mike Martinez (Unite Here Local 11 – Translator)]: Yes. I'm an organizer in Phoenix with the UnitedHealthcare Local eleven. And her statement is, my name is Martha Martel. I worked for SkyChess, an airline food production at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport in Arizona for two years as a porter and a dishwasher. I'm here to share how my life and the lives of my coworkers and I have been thrown into turmoil twice in only three months by wealthy private equity firms. When SkyChefs lost the contract with American Airlines last year, they told 200 of my coworkers that I that we would all be laid off and that the new company Sky Cafe refused to commit to rehiring us even though we have years of experience and provide excellent service. Immigrant who has worked hard to provide for my kids who are now older. I'm also responsible for taking care of my elderly father. But that didn't matter to Sky Cafe, which was owned by a by a private equity firm based here in Connecticut, Atlantic Street Capital. They didn't listen to us. Unite here local eleven, their investors or elected officials, all saying one simple thing, let us keep our jobs. Instead, Atlantic Street sold Sky Cafe to a new company called Prime Flight, which is owned by two more private equity firms, Sterling Group and Capital Meridian Partners. When Prime Flight bought Sky Sky Cafe, we got a confusing letter telling us to complete onboarding steps, but giving us no details or further instructions. It warned us that benefits and policies might change. Many of my coworkers weren't so lucky. No one who works hard every day to keep an airport running should have to live in constant fear of losing everything overnight. So thank you SEIU thirty two BJ for leading the fight to pass this important bill. Thank you, Unite Here for fighting for us. And thank you, Treasurer Russell and the elected officials here, for your support for the workers. We need this bill passed. Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for that translation. And next up we'll have Ciro. Ciro Gutierrez.

[Ciro Gutierrez (SEIU 32BJ member)]: Good morning to the chair and busy chair and distinguished member of the committee. Thank you all for the opportunity to testify today and support a worker rotation bill in Connecticut. My name is Ciro Gutierrez. I am a member of SEIU local thirty two BJ, representing janitors, maintenance workers, and security officers who keep our public and private buildings running every day. I am here today to address a core problem that has been at the heart of the fight we see at the union. When a building change contractors, workers can lose their jobs overnight even if they have worked there for years with excellent performance records. This is not about misconduct, and this is not about poor performance. This is about legal gap that succeeds in Connecticut that disadvantage hardworking employees. Our workers can go to sleep employed and wake up unemployed simply because ownership or contracts have changed. The consequence are serious. Immediate loss of income, loss of health insurance for families, economic economic instability affecting entire communities. A work exploitation bill provides a balanced solution. It will require the in incoming contractor retain workers for a minimum period such as ninety days, allow for objective performance evaluation, ensure proper notice during contract transition. This is not extreme policy. It is a responsible governance. States like California, New Jersey, and Delaware already have similar love in place. They work. They do not create major cost burdens, and they reduce unnecessary turnover. The workers who clean our hospitals and buildings during pandemics, snowstorms, and shutdowns, and our workers who keep the public safe by protecting our buildings deserve basic job stability. Connecticut has the opportunity to lead. I respectfully urge you to support this legislation. Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Cyril. And thank you. I've I've, seen you testify before. I know that you have really brought a lot of important issues to our legislature and appreciate your advocacy. Thank you. I see no hands. So next we'll move to Tammy Atkins, who's number 15 on the list.

[Tammy Atkins (Workers’ Compensation/Disability Rep, MEUI/SEIU Local 506 & 511)]: Good morning, Senator Kushner and members of the Labor Committee. My name is Tammy Atkins. I am the workers' compensation disability Municipal and Connecticut Employees Union Independent, SCIU locals five 06 and five 11. Our unions represent over 6,000 active public sector workers across Connecticut who provide valuable services within our state and municipal facilities and on our state roads. They put their own personal safety on the line every day to plow, repair, and maintain Connecticut state roads, bridges, and buildings, often leaving them with job related injuries that require compensation claims to be filed. In the most extreme cases, a member may be able to file for a disability retirement if left permanently disabled from their injury and no longer able to perform the basic functions of their job. It is my job to help them navigate what can be very arduous claims and applications. I am here today to testify in support of HB HB 5,388, an act concerning processing fees for medical records for applications for disability retirement. There's not much worse that can happen to a worker than being hurt on the job. Even with protections in place, the pain process and time it takes to access benefits creates a real hardship for the worker. This is especially true once they get to the point of applying for disability retirement. Time and time again, one of the toughest barriers I come against are the doctor's offices and their ability to charge exorbitant fees for a patient's own medical records. More often than not through a third party in an electronic format that they are able to release through a secure email. Section four dash one nine four of work Connecticut's Workers' Compensation Act already states that doctor's offices cannot charge for copies of patient's medical records when the request is made for a claim. HB five three eight eight would make it so that doctor's offices also couldn't charge for a patient's medical records when the request is made for a disability retirement application. This legislation would bring much needed parity to disability retirement applications considering that all workers are on an unpaid leave pending their applications decision. Some of these invoices for a patient's own medical records can be upwards of hundreds of dollars and the applications cannot be processed until the records have been released. We had a member just last year with nearly twenty years of service to the state of Connecticut file a disability retirement application that ended up with an invoice of almost $500 which needed to be paid in order to receive his own electronic medical records for his disability retirement application. This particular member was especially sick and ended up homeless throughout the process of his disability retirement application. Tragically, he ended up dying at the September less than two months before his case was scheduled to be heard. Needless to say, he didn't have the resources to properly care for himself or his family during this time, let alone the $500 to pay this third party medical records procurer to simply release his records. People don't think that seemingly small changes in laws and statutes like this can make such big differences but it could have been life changing for this member and for many other people like him who are taken advantage of by the predatory practices of the medical records industry. I appreciate your time to speak today and thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony and I I appreciate, that you actually clarified some of the questions we had when we were first looking at this concept, and putting it forward now as a bill. At the time, I had not focused on the fact that this is something that workers' compensation in under the workers' compensation statute, there is no charge for the electronic transfer of these records. Correct. And so I think that, the focus here is on those people who have served for a long time in the state, as you mentioned, and are disabled and looking for a disability retirement have to have those records transferred in order to qualify for their retirement. So I appreciate that clarification in your testimony. It's something we were asking about. I don't know if there are any other questions here, but I I I know the other question was the fact that, really these are records that are being transferred electronically from a doctor's office. Correct. And your testimony helped clarify how long it takes sometimes, to get a doctor's office to do this. So this will help if the person doesn't have to pay for those records, but we still probably have to worry about how long it takes for a doctor's office to respond to.

[Tammy Atkins (Workers’ Compensation/Disability Rep, MEUI/SEIU Local 506 & 511)]: Correct.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That's still gonna be a problem, but hopefully this will address some of the need on the part of the employee. Thank you for that testimony. I don't see any hands. So, Thank you.

[Attorney (Counsel for Janelle Grant)]: Thank you

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: very much for being here. Next up, we have testifying remotely, Frank Ritchie.

[Frank Ricci (Yankee Institute)]: Thank you, chairs, ranking members, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Frank Ritchie from the Yankee Institute, and I'm here to testify in opposition to the binding arbitration provisions contained in s b three five one, h b five two one eight, and h b five zero zero three. While these are separate legislative vehicles, they ultimately achieve the same result. They remove final decision making authority from locally elected boards of education, transferring it to an unelected arbitrator. Binding arbitration language in these bills is not minor procedural adjustments. It's a direct assault on local control. It fundamentally alters who makes the final decision about a teacher's termination. Board of education members are elected for a reason. Voters entrust them with the responsibility to make difficult and sometimes controversial decisions. Those decisions can involve serious misconduct ranging from repeated insubordination to the most disturbing allegations including sexual misconduct involving a child. Under these proposals, even in the most egregious circumstances, the elected board of education is reduced to a ceremonial role. The power to fire would rest with a single arbitrator who is not accountable to parents or the taxpayers. This is not reform. It transfers authority from accountable representatives to an unelected decision maker. If a board makes a poor decision, the public has a remedy at the ballot box. There is no such remedy for a binding arbitration award. This legislature needs to protect local control, accountability, and democratic governance. Additionally, h b five zero three contains language that has already been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under Janus. That language must be removed. The bill should be amended to clearly state that any union member may resign union membership upon providing thirty day notice to the union or the employer. Constitutional compliance is not optional. Now where there's some agreement, codifying a just cause standard is responsible governance. Clear statutory guardrails protect teachers from arbitrary discipline while providing municipalities from costly and unnecessary litigation. Well established just cause framework, notice, reasonable rules, impartial investigations, substantial proof, consistent application, and proportional discipline creates fairness and defensibility for all parties when properly applied. We also support workers' compensation protections for teachers injured by students with reasonable requirements for a light duty assignments when medically appropriate. Employees deserve protection, and the taxpayers deserve responsible stewardship. And that's what's been missing most in Connecticut. In closing, support just cause and support injured teachers with minor amendments. Please refer to my written testimony for those changes, but reject binding arbitration that strips authority from elected board of educations and remove unconstitutional language. We don't want workers not knowing their rights. This is simple. Protect local control, protect accountability, and protect democratic governance. It'd be my honor to take any questions. Thank you for your time today.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I see, representative Weir.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, Frank, for your testimony. I, am somewhat familiar with the Supreme Court decision, but didn't didn't see the conflict here. So can you elaborate on your statement that this portion of the bill is unconstitutional? The three Yes.

[Ed Thibodeau (CEA UniServ Representative)]: So this isn't

[Frank Ricci (Yankee Institute)]: the language in the bill that's a proposed change. It's actually old language that talks about shop agency fees. So what it means is when a union member right now goes to, say, AI and searches Connecticut's laws, they're gonna get back an answer that's gonna say that in Connecticut law, they have to pay a shop agency fee. They have to pay dues e or a portion of dues even though they're not a member of the union. That's not fair. We want all workers in Connecticut to understand their rights. And what we find is municipalities in the states, they don't wanna get involved in labor type of disputes, so they don't tell members their rights. So it's really important that legislation is clear that union members do have a right to opt out of the union.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I don't see any other hands. So next up, we have Brooke Foley.

[Frank Ricci (Yankee Institute)]: I see a hand, senator.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you online. Representative Canino.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning Frank Ricci)]: No worries. Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you, Frank, for coming to testify. Always appreciate hearing from you. I have a quest question on the just cause standard and the arbitrator piece. So we've heard discussion that the just cause standard for discipline is at war with having a neutral arbitrator make a neutral decision. Can you elaborate on that a little further, you know, if you see that there's a conflict there?

[Frank Ricci (Yankee Institute)]: Yes. I actually think that there's a real important conflict, especially when it comes to protecting due process, which everybody wants to protect. See, one of the pillars of that just cause investigation is a fair investigation. And even Connecticut's own labor board has upheld that for that fair investigation, you should really have a separation of roles. So to just put it out there for the layperson at home, you wouldn't want the prosecutor to be the judge. So you want the person, say, the department head. Let's take the police department, for example. You don't want the police chief in conducting the actual investigation and then rendering the decision. Our own labor board in Connecticut has frowned upon that. As a union president and a union leader for sixteen years, I've used this argument against chiefs, fire chiefs that have tried to do the investigation and render discipline, and I've been successful in overturning discipline because the investigation wasn't fair. So I think we elect board of education members to make those decisions. They make them close to the problem. If we're gonna have just cause, we need to have elected officials that are empowered to make decisions. This bill really is an attack on democratic governance, and it basically handcuffs board of education members from making the tough decisions, and we don't need that in Connecticut.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning Frank Ricci)]: Thank you, Frank. And, yeah, I appreciate the color of the argument. We've heard from some of our, municipal leaders who are up in opposition to a just cause standard that, you know, while other employees in the school system might have that standard, it's necessary to have it for the teachers because the school boards need to make some quick decisions, and they fear that a just cause standard might unnecessarily delay certain proceedings that might impede getting a problem teacher out there. Do you have any response to that in those concerns by our municipalities?

[Frank Ricci (Yankee Institute)]: I do. When even in Blue State Connecticut, when somebody is put forth for discipline and it goes before the labor board or goes before the neutral arbitrator in a teacher sense, the union doesn't have a lot of cards to protect the employee. They only get cards in that game is when management fails to follow their own rules. Just cause standard is reasonable. You can fire a bad actor in employee in Connecticut if management does their job, and that protects management from lawsuits and other adverse actions. So I don't have a problem with the just cost standard. It actually makes managers do their job the right way. But I would say this, take a look at New Haven police that mayor Ellichert just got in their contract for the police department. I don't think we should have just cause for teachers and then allow a teacher that's arrested for a felony, say, harming a child, where they're put on paid administrative leave for a year. You know, a a popular amendment to this could follow the New Haven police model that if a teacher is arrested for a felony or any employee for that matter, that they are an unpaid administrative leave until the case is adjudicated or the department wants to use the just cause standard and actually adjudicate the case early. One of the things that a lot of municipalities don't do in Connecticut that just is mind blowing, I think you should realize this, is an employee in Connecticut and across the country doesn't have a fifth amendment right to plead silence. Any manager, any department head, any municipality in the state can compel the employee to answer every single question. And if they refuse to answer the question, they can be held for insubordination, which our labor board has upheld this termination. They just have to be granted Garrity rights, which is a supreme court case out of Jersey that simply says, if the manager or the investigator is gonna ask this question of the employee and compel the answer so that the employee has to answer it and can't plead the fifth that they can't share that information with the prosecutor or the district attorney.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning Frank Ricci)]: Thank you, Frank. This is why we have public hearings. You're definitely providing me some information that I didn't consider before and will definitely use going forward to make a decision. So I I really appreciate it and yield the rest of my time to the chair. Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Are there any other hands? Seeing none, we wanna thank you, Frank, for testifying.

[Frank Ricci (Yankee Institute)]: Thank you. Have a great day.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And next up, we have Portfolio.

[Brooke Foley (Insurance Association of Connecticut)]: Good morning, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, vice chairs, ranking members, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Brooke Foley and I'm here on behalf of the Insurance Association of Connecticut. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in opposition to Senate Bill three fifty five, Senate Bill three forty eight, section eight of House Bill 5,003, and House Bill 5,385. We've submitted testimony for your review but I'll just make a few comments. First, Senate Bill three fifty five limits the use of non disclosure agreements. While we understand the intent of the bill is to prevent unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace, this bill is overly broad and goes far beyond those situations in restricting legitimate and beneficial agreements. Employers rely on these agreements to protect sensitive business information, proprietary processes, and confidential settlement terms. Without enforceable non disclosure agreements, companies will be reluctant to resolve disputes privately leading to prolonged and costly litigation. This bill would discourage companies from offering severance packages that they will have little assurance that the terms of an agreement will remain confidential. The bill's language is vague and subjective relying on employees reason belief of misconduct rather than a clear legal standard. This will invite disgruntled employees to make exaggerated or false claims and make businesses defend against unproven allegations with no means of protecting their reputations. This bill discourages settlements, increases litigation, and ultimately hurts both businesses and employees. Turning now to House Bill three forty eight and section eight of House Bill five zero zero three, these bills extend workers comp benefits to include workers comp coverage for Department of Public Works employees from their home to the workplace. This measure would increase workers comp insurance costs and oppose additional burdens on employers. Under the coming and going rule, injuries sustained during a worker's normal commute are generally not compensable because they do not occur within the scope of employment. Moreover, the Connecticut case law already provides several exceptions to that rule. Finally, House Bill three, sorry, five three eight five would require the Workers Compensation Commission to conduct a study of undue delay in workers compensation for firefighters and police officers. There's no documented issue with delays in the processing of workers compensation claims claims specific to police officers and firefighters, nor does the workers' compensation commission collect the data contemplated by the bill. The workers' compensation program is working smoothly. These bills could deter businesses from expanding or investing in the state and we urge you not to advance these bills. Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you again for your testimony. Next up we have Timothy Condon.

[Timothy Condon (President, Montville Professional Firefighters)]: Good morning members of the committee. My name is Timothy Condon. I'm the union president for the Motteville professional firefighters in Motteville, Connecticut. We're the host community, of the Mohegan Sun for reference of where we are. I'm here today to support, fifty two eighty two. It's a, study that's requiring the comptroller to do a study on healthcare, in benefits for retired police and fire. Lately, this legislative body has been busy addressing the issues of the fire service. You've brought us, wonderful bills like the PTSD bill, the cancer bill, recently under E cert, you have a study that I believe dovetails nicely with this study of, pensions for all for police and fire. Also, we all understand now that, after the state comptroller's report on the loss of our, firefighting workforce, we are heavily looking into retention and recruitment, which I'm sure you're all aware of. While we're trying to build a bridge into the fire service and we're addressing the issues that we know exist such as PTSD and cancer, we need to also look at a bridge out of the service because those of us that are in the fire service, we are experiencing the reduced workforce. The call volume is going up and we're getting exposed more to the things that are causing us harm. And so while we need to get more people in, we also need to build a bridge for the people to get out. The study that was in the E cert was for the the pensions for all. That is a that is a great start. However I would say that there are many firefighters who are in pensions that are unable to leave or separate from service even though they want to because of the cost of health care. My father was a perfect example of that. I'm a second generation firefighter. He gave thirty years to the city in New London. After twenty or twenty five years, my father was mentally prepared to separate from service, and he was in a pension like I am where we both in MERS. However, he couldn't because, my mother made a wonderful sacrifice when we were little and raised my brother and I. And so my father was the the breadwinner and provided the health care for the family. So he was forced to stay for health care benefits. He gave thirty years. The only reason he didn't have to go further to thirty five years when he would have been eligible for Medicare Medicaid was because under the Biden era there were some subsidies that were given and he could afford to retire. Those have all sunset. So we're back to where we were before. So now we have firefighters sitting on the line who may possibly want to go, may mentally need to go, who've given a lifetime of experience and themselves to their communities, and they need they need to, be given a way out. So while you address all of these issues, this is a massive piece that, I believe is missing when we when we look at this problem of the fire service, it's puzzle pieces all coming together. And I think this is a massive piece that, is is currently missing that. I would urge I know not every single bill that comes before you is gonna be brought to the floor for a vote. And I know this is it's compared to what you have it is just a study but it matters greatly to us it it is a starting point. And even if this body, does nothing more than than get this study conducted as a union president it matters greatly when we sit with our municipalities and we negotiate. Everything I'm telling you here is anecdotal. But the second we have a study with that seal on it, it it carries a lot of of weight and gravitas with our with our municipalities and it it becomes empirical data instead of anecdotal evidence. So I I hope you champion this. I know it's a smaller issue. I know you have the UPFFA later today. They're gonna speak much more eloquently on other things that, that are that are facing us. But I felt it was important to to say that this this issue while maybe Hondon, your

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: time is almost up. Please include your remarks.

[Timothy Condon (President, Montville Professional Firefighters)]: Thank you. I just hope that you champion this cause, and and try to get it to the floor for a vote.

[Representative Gauthier]: Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions? Representative Caffier.

[Representative Gauthier]: Thank you, chair mister chair. So I I wanna first start off, in talking about 5382 to study, the health insurance landscape for retired police and, retired firefighters by thanking, the, the chair and the leadership of this committee to, make sure that firefighters are included. You know, as we heard, from President Condon, this is something that firefighters absolutely, need addressed in their retirement so that they can successfully retire, and safely retire. And, mister Connon, I know that we have discussed, and as you alluded to, cancer rates amongst, firefighters, and how that, you know, relates to the cost of, being able to retire and being able to afford health care in retirement. So I was wondering if you could fill in a little bit more about, kind of, what the needs are that are facing firefighters in retirement as it relates to almost the standard hazard of the job. And, again, we've discussed how cancer is almost seen as, or anticipated as, a hazard of the job, due to the chemicals that are used in the firefighting profession, the equipment, the gear. So if you could fill in a little bit more, whether anecdotally, or, you know, referencing, you know, data and statistics on cancer rates and, and how the equipment that you use contributes to cancer rates and the cost of health insurance, I think that would be helpful for why this is important, for us to advance. Thank you.

[Timothy Condon (President, Montville Professional Firefighters)]: Sure. Great great question. I think traditionally the fire service I can I can only give you my experience in our corner of the state? I started in the fire service when I was 15 years old. I'm 43. That's almost thirty years in the fire service. If I were to retire at the same age as my father, I would have spent almost fifty years in the fire service. It's a heavy cancer riddled field. The things that are burning today are not what they were in yesteryears, you know, with all the plastics and whatnot. I I can't speak as to why the cancer rates are so high. What I am saying is that the fire service, unlike other professions, you can you can join a volunteer firehouse like I did. You can be in the fire service an extremely long time. In our community, there are three firefighters I don't know of that have the same exact cancer. There's something wrong there. So my point in this is just saying that if, we're asking people to come into the fire service, we need to show not only open the door in but open the open the door out so that I think that would actually be a better retention recruitment tool to show people that you can come in you can do your time and leave gracefully and not have to sit you know in a profession where you may have to give, you know, thirty, forty years and, leave with nothing.

[Representative Gauthier]: Thank you, and if I may. Just more broadly, again, we're talking about studying the insurance landscape for retirees in in police and fire. And as a as a body, you know, funding, cancer needs, but these seem to be almost after the, effect, right? After the cancer is developed, after the healthcare, needs are, expressed. Do you have broadly any thoughts about maybe future legislation or future areas that, that we as a general assembly can work on to figure out how to reduce the cancer rates and make it so that cancer is not a standard hazard of the profession? Thank you.

[Timothy Condon (President, Montville Professional Firefighters)]: Yeah. That's an excellent question, and I urge you to ask that to the UPFFA who's gonna be filing, later today. Anything that I would be giving, they can say much more eloquently than I can. The only thing I would say is, you know, in my training coming up, we had this thing time distance and shielding when talking about hazmat radiation. What I'm focused on here is time. If if we can show people the way out, then people like my father wouldn't have to give five more years in a field where we do have high rates of cancer and high rates of PTSD. And, they've given enough time so that they've earned the pension. So the pension's one aspect, but the health care's the other. Even if we have the pension aspect, if you don't have the health care, they need to work together so that people can leave with dignity.

[Representative Gauthier]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

[Timothy Condon (President, Montville Professional Firefighters)]: Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, we have Tenny Larson.

[Tenney Larson]: Good afternoon, Senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Tenney Larson. I live in New Haven, and I'm a graduate student at the Yale School of Public Health. I also have a strong research interest in occupational health and safety and workers protections. I'm here today in strong support of SB three forty five, and more specifically, section three, which establishes a task force to study workplace heat safety standards. I believe this bill represents a crucial first step in the development of future legislation aimed at safeguarding workers from heat related hazards. I urge the committee to recognize the significance of this issue, especially considering the unique challenges faced by the state of Connecticut. A study on workplace heat standards is necessary for several reasons. The current heat protections at the federal level are weak and temporary. They mainly rely on the general duty clause, which does not explicitly outline heat related protections for workers, and the national emphasis program, which is temporary and only extended through April 2026. So no permanent standards in place, there's a need for safety standards at the state level. Additionally, the federal 2026 budget decreased OSHA funding by $50,000,000 with most of the cuts coming from enforcement and reduction of regulations. And since Connecticut only has state OSHA plan for public employees, this leaves private sector workers especially vulnerable. Heat related illness is also systematically underreported. Heat exhaustion can cause loss of coordination or overexertion that may lead to slips, trips, and falls, or other injuries which mask the true scale of heat impacts. And even with that undercounting, there were thirty one thousand heat related injuries recorded in 2023. Other states are already acting on the issue. In the Northeast, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Rhode Island have all introduced similar legislation to address occupational heat risk. And research shows that states with heat standards report significantly fewer heat related illnesses. Climate change makes this issue urgent for Connecticut as the state has warmed nearly twice as fast as the national average with an average of 20 per year over 90 degrees. Compounding this risk, the EPA has also proposed a $5,000,000,000 reduction to its budget and the elimination of the endangerment finding which underpins federal climate safeguards. These cuts will worsen the effects of rising temperatures that Connecticut workers already face. And to address this, I recommend the task force evaluate effective heat triggers for future legislation, assess minimum effective break times, study hydration standards, still clear and specific enforcement mechanisms so employers understand expectations and workers understand their rights, and most importantly, it should conduct a review on other states policies to identify best practices. This bill does not impose immediate mandates and ensures Connecticut takes a thoughtful evidence based approach to closing a clear worker protection gap. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any of your questions.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have Joe Toner. Alright. We're gonna, keep going down. Next up, Joellen.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: All

[Jo Ellen Leon (Director, Foundation for Fair Contracting of Connecticut)]: right. Thank you guys. Good afternoon. Representative Sanchez and representative Wilson, Senator Sampson, and the rest of the labor and public employees committee. My name's Jo Ellen Leon and I am the director at the foundation for fair contracting of Connecticut. At this organization, what we do is we work to promote compliance with prevailing wage laws and strengthen accountability on public construction projects across our state. And I just wanna be clear, so that you know that the affiliates that we represent include not only the building trades, but several contractor associations. I'm here in strong support today of Senate bill three fifty six, which would require employers to submit certified payroll records electronically. Let me be clear at the outset. This bill does not create new wage obligations. It does not expand prevailing wage coverage. It does not change what contractors are required to pay. What it does is modernize how payroll records are submitted and reviewed right now, Connecticut operates under a fragmented inconsistent system. Some municipalities require electronic submission, others still require paper and sub bid, some bid documents are just silent on the subject altogether. That patchwork system is inefficient, difficult to audit and unnecessarily burdensome for both contractors and enforcement agencies. Senate bill three fifty six replaces that inconsistency with a uniform centralized electronic system through the department of labor. Contractors already prepare certified payroll. They already track classifications, hours, and fringe benefits. They already maintain job site documentation. This bill simply standardizes the submission process into a twenty first century format instead of relying on outdated paper processes. The current system is what creates confusion and inefficiency, not this bill. You will hear concerns about administrative burden, particularly for small contractors. Respectfully, that concern is overstated. The vast majority of contractors already run payroll electronically. Most payroll software can generate certified payroll reports with a few clicks. Uploading a report to a centralized system is not an expansion of of obligations. It is a streamlined submission method. In fact, a centralized system reduces duplicative filings and inconsistency, inconsistent agency requirements. You will also hear concerns about implementation. The bill does not take effect as written now until December 2027, nearly two years from now, that is ample time for development training and phased rollout. Other states have successfully implemented certified payroll systems and this is not experimental policy, it is proven policy. New York, New Jersey, California, Washington, and Illinois already require electronic certified payroll reporting. Connecticut should not lag behind pure states in adopting basic modernization tools. With respect to daily job site logs, which this bill would also require, construction sites are high risk environments funded by taxpayer dollars. Knowing who is on a job site in what trade classification and when they are present is fundamental to accountability and safety. Responsible contractors already maintain these records. This bill ensures uniformity across public works projects. We do suggest one small modification in the language regarding the daily logins. Currently it's written to that they should be submitted monthly. We respectfully request a change to say that they're, submitted weekly, just so that we can, have that information in a more timely manner. Finally, this legislation is about protecting workers who build our schools, our roads, and public infrastructure, and protecting taxpayers who fund those projects. Transparency and uniform reporting are not burdens. They are basic safeguards in a modern public public contracting system. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your supports for Senate bill three fifty six. And I thank you for your time and consideration, and happy to answer any questions.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Okay. Thanks. Next up, we have John Brady.

[John Brady (RN; Vice President, AFT Connecticut)]: Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. We can. Go ahead.

[John Brady (RN; Vice President, AFT Connecticut)]: Hi. Good afternoon, senator and members of the committee. My name is John Brady. I'm a registered nurse, and I'm the vice president of AFD Connecticut. I've submitted written testimony in support of five zero zero three and five three eight six, which is the paycheck transparency bill. I'm gonna speak mostly on five zero zero three. Doctors, nurses, and social workers, and other health care providers face five times the risk of assault as compared to other industries. You'd be hard pressed to find a health care worker who has not been assaulted. We are spit at, punched, kicked, and more. In my twenty plus years at the bedside, I experienced all those things. These assaults happen to all health care workers, including some you would not consider clinical, such as registrars and housekeepers. Anyone in the health care setting who is in contact with patients and or the public is at risk. It's no wonder we have a shortage of health care professionals willing to work in these conditions. Of the nearly nine 90,000 registered nurses in Connecticut, only 52,000 are actively participating. When a health care worker is assaulted, they face a second assault when they are penalized financially because workers' compensation only partially replaces lost wages. Section one of this bill seeks to correct this. It mirrors what happens in education. It requires a facility to make up the difference so that a health care worker is not harmed financially. In short, it prevents a health care worker from being revictimized a second time. Section three would be helpful in alerting health care providers when patients move from one system to another and could help decrease instances of workplace violence. Section six provides an affirmative defense for the health care worker and certain parking violations that occur in the cost of their employment. It's important because there are times when the safety of the health care worker or needed expediency of seek seeing the patient needs to override normal parking regulations. One such example is when a visiting nurse visits a patient in neighborhood with poor parking options and where walking a further distance would put the nurse at risk. These three second sections protect health care workers from workplace assaults. They're an important part of improving the workplace environment, increasing retention, and recruitment. I thank you for the opportunity, to testify, and I'll try to answer any questions you might have.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing none, I wanna thank you, John, for your testimony.

[John Brady (RN; Vice President, AFT Connecticut)]: Thank you, sir.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, we have Heather Brough.

[Heather Brough (Registered Nurse, Backus Hospital)]: Hello. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. We can. Go ahead.

[Heather Brough (Registered Nurse, Backus Hospital)]: Great. Thank you so much, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, Senator Sampson, Representative Weir, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Heather Broth, and I'm a resident of Salem, Connecticut. I work as a registered nurse here at Backus Hospital, and I'm testifying today in support of HB 5,003, an act concerning workforce development and working conditions in the state. I support this bill because we continue to see the the assault and violence toward healthcare workers rise, and it's time to start recognizing that working in healthcare can be and is dangerous. The workers deserve to be compensated and not punished when they've been injured by a patient or one of their patient's family members. I've been a nurse here in Connecticut since 2012. I cannot tell you the number of times I personally have been verbally and physically assaulted. Everything from cursed at, yelled at, kicked, punched, spit on, urinated on, and overall belittled and disgraced as a human working in healthcare. I experienced less assault and violence bartending for ten years before becoming a nurse than I have over the last fourteen years working in healthcare. I have been strangled with my own stethoscope. I have been kicked so hard that I was in a brace and out of work for six months due to injuries to my hand and wrist. I've had my life threatened by a gang member who was a patient because I wouldn't let him leave the hospital and smoke with his friends. I don't know any other job where someone can say they've had the same experiences and keep going back, except maybe police officers, firefighters, and teachers. Police officers, firefighters, and teachers here in Connecticut have workplace protections for when they're assaulted on the job and forced to take a leave of absence. Their incomes were placed at a 100% in order to offset the fact that they were injured in the line of duty. Healthcare workers need and deserve the same respect. Employees who are assaulted may have the option to file for FMLA. However, that only provides job protection and no financial recourse when work is being missed. Employees at Backus Hospital can file for CT paid leave, which covers around 60% of lost wages. The employees on a leave of absence must, however, take the first thirty six hours of that leave out of their own accrued PTO time. This means the employee is punished for being assaulted. They're forced to use time that they have worked hard to accrue while being assaulted to then be out of work due to the assault. I can tell you firsthand the process to access even this 60% requires jumping through many hoops and filling out never ending paperwork. I personally was out on a leave of absence in December and still have not been paid. I missed almost an entire month of work and have not received compensation despite filling out the paperwork multiple times. To make it perfectly clear, all this work is to get 60% of my lost income, which at this point was 100% of no earnings coming in for the month. This creates increased undue stress for an employee who's already in crisis due to being out of work and having an injury to tend to. This needs to change. Health care workers help you when you're in crisis and now it's time to help them. Providing this financial assistance to health care workers could mean the difference between paying their bills and falling into default. This assistance could mean the difference between getting groceries or not. Injured health care workers should shouldn't have to choose between making their mortgage or rent or food. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing none, I wanna thank you for your testimony.

[Heather Brough (Registered Nurse, Backus Hospital)]: Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, we have Donna Palumba.

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: Miss Palomba, if you could unmute your microphone, you will be able to begin testimony.

[Donna Palomba (Founder/President, Jane Doe No More)]: Great. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, everyone, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is Donna Palumba, and I live in Woodbury. I am the founder and president of Jane Doe No More, a Connecticut based nonprofit born from my lived experience as a survivor of a brutal home invasion and rape and the revictimization that followed. In 2007, my case led to the removal of the statute of limitations on sexual crimes with DNA evidence in Connecticut. Our mission at Jane Doe No More is to empower survivors to find their voice, advance their healing, and then go on to educate others. I'm here today in strong support of Senate Bill three five five. At its core, this bill is about making sure nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements are not used to silence people who have experienced illegal harm. No one should ever have to choose between keeping their job and telling the truth. Yet that's exactly what happens when these agreements are used to cover up discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage theft, or even sexual assault. Contracts should not be used to protect unlawful behavior. This bill is about accountability. When misconduct is hidden, it doesn't stop. It continues and often spreads. Transparency is not anti business. It's pro accountability and pro safety. It's also about putting survivors and workers first. Too often, these agreements protect institutions instead of people. Survivors deserve the right to speak about what happened to them without fear of financial ruin or retaliation. Speaking about harm should never be treated as wrongdoing. Workplace safety depends on people being able to report problems openly. Patterns of abuse only come to light when individuals feel safe enough to speak. Senate Bill three five five helps ensure that illegal conduct cannot be buried behind legal language. Importantly, this bill strikes a reasonable balance. It does not eliminate protections for trade secrets or legitimate confidential business information. Employers can still protect their proprietary interests. What they cannot do is use confidential agreements to hide illegal acts. And enforcement matters without meaningful consequences, These provisions will continue to be used. By allowing statutory damages and attorney's fees, this this bill gives the law real strength and sends a clear message that retaliation will not be tolerated. While the federal Speak Out Act was an important step, it does not provide strong state level enforcement or explicit anti retaliation protections here in Connecticut. Senate Bill three five five helps close those gaps by promoting transparency, strengthening accountability, protecting workers and volunteers, and advancing survivor safety. I respectfully urge you to support senate bill three five five, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing none, I wanna thank you for your testimony.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, we have Jaya Dadwal.

[Jaya Dadwal (CEO & Co-founder, For EVA; JD/MPH student, Yale)]: Good afternoon, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, Senator Cabrera, Representative Wilson, Senator Sampson, Representative Weir, and other distinguished members of the Committee on Labor and public employees. My name is Jaya Dadwal. I'm grateful for the opportunity to provide testimony this afternoon in support of Senate bill number three five three, which requires reasonable workplace accommodations for menopause related conditions. I appear in my capacity as a CEO and cofounder of a women's health company for EVA, as well as a lawyer and masters of public health student at Yale University. My testimony situates a bill within the broader critique of labor laws historically androcentric framework. The traditional ideal worker standard assumes continuous full time availability, physical durability, and freedom from caregiving interruptions, assumptions that reflect male life patterns and can disadvantage many women. Feminist legal advocacy over the over several decades has challenged these embedded norms in three broad waves, paving the way for more inclusive workplace standards. Firstly, sexual harassment doctrine influenced by Catherine McKinnon's work, established the gendered workplace harms that can materially alter employment conditions. And we've heard that testimony from multiple people today. Secondly, maternity and parental leave policies, particularly the family and medical leave act and subsequent state paid leave programs began shifting workplace policy towards policy towards supporting caregiving workers and improving female labor force retention. Menopause accommodations are the next logical third wave of labor reform. The argument for menopause accommodations is economic. Menopausal women constitute approximately 20% of The US labor force, making the workforce participation a macroeconomic concern rather than a niche issue. Research cited from the Mayo Clinic estimates that menopause related absenteeism costs The US economy $1,800,000,000 annually. Workplace workplace inflexibility produces measurable labor supply losses. My testimony reports that ten to fourteen percent of women retire prematurely due to menopause symptoms, while additional ten to fifteen percent consider early retirement. These exits disproportionately affect experienced workers at their peak earning years. This dynamic contributes to the well documented leaky pipeline phenomenon in leadership. Among women experiencing menopause impacts, thirty six percent of midline mid level managers and forty three percent of senior executives report retirement considerations linked to symptoms. Because menopause often coincides with advancements into senior roles, the economy loses high skilled human capital precisely when it's most valuable. I further note that women experience an average of 10% earning decline within four years of a menopause related health care visit, magnifying these losses at higher salary levels. Organizations with greater female leadership, by contrast, are consistently associated with stronger financial returns. The economic implication is straightforward. Relatively low cost accommodations, for example, environmental adjustments or even a desk fan, can prevent costly talent attrition and protect firm productivity. Lastly, I want to examine menopause accommodations within a positive externalities framework. Historically, gender specific workplace reforms have produced spillover benefits beyond women. Sexual harassment law ultimately protected men, including in same sex context recognized in. Likewise, maternity leave advocacy evolved into gender neutral parental leave under the FMLA, improving men's health, family relationships, and life satisfaction. Menopause accommodations are expected to generate similar economy wide gains by prompting broader workplace adaptions for all aging employees. Because older men often report substantial age related employment barriers, reforms that normalize accommodations for menopausal workers may also mitigate ageism and support longer workforce attachment across genders. Senate bill three five three is economically justified policy. By reducing premature exits along a large and experienced segment of the workforce, menopause accommodations would strengthen labor supply, improve firm performance, and generate positive externalities benefiting the broader economy. Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, I wanna thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have Beth Hamilton.

[Beth Hamilton (Executive Director, CT Alliance to End Sexual Violence)]: Good morning, Chairwoman Kushner. Good afternoon at this point. Chairwoman Kushner, Chairman Sanchez, ranking member Samson, ranking member Weir, and distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Beth Hamilton and I am the executive director of the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence. We are survivor centered and survivor led coalition and our mission is to prevent and eliminate sexual violence in our state through education, legislation, advocacy, trauma informed care, and a statewide network of support for victims and survivors. Our member centers provide twenty four seven crisis interventions through hotlines, counseling, support groups, and in person accompaniments, and advocacy in hospital plea police and court settings. Our legal services team provides no cost representation to victims in both civil and criminal court. And our post conviction victim advocates, the only ones in the nation, support survivors, whose perpetrators are under the supervision of the state's parole and probation sex offender supervision units. The Alliance strongly supports SB three five five, an act concerning limitations on the use of non disclosure agreements. For too long, non disclosure agreements have been used not simply to protect legitimate business interest, but to silence survivors of sexual assault, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other unlawful conduct. Whether someone can speak about harm should never depend on how powerful their employer is. SB three fifty five ensures that survivors' rights to speak are enforceable, consistent, and protected under our State Civil Rights laws. This bill makes clear that any agreement preventing an employee, contractor, or volunteer from disclosing conduct they reasonably believed to be discrimination, harassment, retaliation, sexual assault, or other illegal conduct is void and unenforceable. Just as importantly, it prohibits employers from retaliating against someone for speaking about that misconduct. No one should have to choose between their paycheck and their safety. SB three five five also creates meaningful enforcement. By making it a discriminatory practice to require or enforce prohibited NDA provisions, complaints can be filed with Connecticut's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities who you heard testify earlier today. That means education, investigation, and accountability are built directly into our state's existing civil rights system. While the federal SPEAK OUT Act was an important first step in limiting certain pre dispute NDAs and sexual assault and harassment cases only, it lacks strong anti retaliation protections and state level enforcement mechanisms here in Connecticut. SB three fifty five fills those gaps and ensures real accountability. As you heard earlier, it actually does not ban NDAs. Employers can still protect trade secrets, proprietary information, and confidential settlement amounts and survivors can still request and choose to use confidential agreements. What SB three five five does is prevent the use of NDAs to hide illegal conduct and silence survivors. Secrecy enables repeated harm and transparency promotes safety. SB three fifty five ensures that confidentiality is a choice for survivors, not a condition imposed to protect wrongdoing. We urge the committee to support SB three fifty five and join the 14 other states that have some form of NDA restrictions. Thank you for supporting survivors.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions? Seeing none, I wanna thank you for your testimony. Now we're gonna go back, and we're going to call on Joe

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Toner.

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: Good afternoon. Members of Labor Committee, Co Chair Sanchez. My name is Joe Toan. I'm the Executive Director with the Connecticut State Building Trades, and with me today, I have Jay Moore, who is the business agent for my local, UA seven seven seven here in Connecticut, and we're talking in support of SB three five six, an act concerning electronic filing of certified payrolls and daily logs for certain public projects. So, I'll start by saying that the I'm gonna speak a little bit on the, electronic certified payrolls. That's something that's been much needed in our industry. It's been overdue. There's many states surrounding states that have this process in place. And, what it does, it streamlines the system for reporting on, sir, on on, publicly funded projects. It not only helps the contractors, it helps the construction managers, it helps the municipalities and it creates a uniform system of filing certified payrolls. Right now, the system is all over the place. You know, some certified payrolls are housed on job sites. Some certified payrolls are housed in town halls and municipalities municipalities. Some are housed within the departments within the state of Connecticut, and and and it they're hard to track. And once again, it will make sure that there's a uniform system in the state of Connecticut for filing certified payroll. So, I think, wanna I wanna hand it over to Jay. I think, a big part of of of this bill is making sure that our our our not only our members, but all construction workers are safe in the industry. We know right now that there's some bad actors that don't know who's working on their project at all. And if and if something does happen on the project, we wanna make sure there's accountability for the people on the project. So, at this time, I'd like to turn it over to Jay Moore.

[Jay Moore (UA Local 777 Business Agent)]: Thank you, Joe. Representative Weir Sanchez and Wilson. Appreciate the opportunity to speak today. So, I'm gonna touch base a little bit on a piece that's within the within the bill. It's called a sign in sheet for for the project. So, as enter as the workers entered the job site for the day, they would sign in to recognize that they're on-site. One of the main purposes of this is for a safety aspect. In construction, it's very dangerous. Bad things do happen. In 2010, we had a power plant explosion, which was devastating to the construction industry. It was a tragedy. Some of my friends and our members, were killed in that explosion. So, while electronic payroll and logging systems wouldn't have prevented that disaster, a comprehensive daily workforce log would have helped in the aftermath for the first responders, for the workers, for the companies, and the construction managers. If they had a daily sign in sheet, at that muster point, the first responders would have been able to call out names, and they would have known immediately who to search for. And in that process, the first responders would have been able to know where to search for these people because most people have a designated work area to save them from going into a disastrous area unnecessarily, searching for bodies because they don't know who or where they are. So I truly believe that this sign and sheet is a very, very important thing. It can save lives. It can save first responders' lives. It can track who and comes from a who comes and goes on a job site. And it's a very important piece and it's near and dear to my heart due to the fact that I've lived through some devastation in construction. So that that's, that's all I have. Thank you.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Representative Weir.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I'm gonna, I have a question, I think for each of you based on which sections you covered. So Joe, just find the how so well, I guess I'll ask. What is the process now for certifying the certified payroll records? How often do you have to submit those under current?

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: It's this it's the same time period that's in the bill.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. So currently, they're submitting the monthly Yes. Today. And we're just and we're asking that they continue to certify that to send them in monthly. However, it can only be electronic going forward.

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: Correct. And I and I think I think part of it, more importantly, is is there's gonna be a portal that they're gonna go to. So every certified payroll or every any publicly funded job in the state of Connecticut is gonna be entered into that portal. So, I think, I think that's the important piece. Right? There's gonna be one system housing these records. And I, and I think that's, that's important. A, it helps the contractor, helps continuity, and B, it also provides transparency for people looking at these records. We I I I'll be honest with you. I mean, for for people that are trying to view records now, on a publicly funded project. In some cases, we were waiting sixty to ninety days to to review payrolls for for work that was performed, quite a while before.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for that, answer. May I proceed with, asking a few more follow ups? Mister chair, madam chair, mister mister chair. So currently does that portal exist?

[Ciro Gutierrez (SEIU 32BJ member)]: No. It doesn't.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. So we're so help walk me through this because I didn't see that in the language that so if we're gonna require, and I know that this doesn't start for a little, you know, 18 months, where's what's the mechanism in place? Who's creating that portal? Who's you know, if the portal doesn't exist, what's gonna get the contract That's the piece that I don't understand in this is how does that come to pass through you, Mr. Chair?

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: Yes. Representative where so, so the, we are in contact and with other States that use that providers that perform those, the portal, they provide the, the portals. So we know New York has, and New Jersey has Washington state. So we have an idea of the people that have initiated these portals in those other States. And then I would, I would, I would assume it would, it would be housed at the department of labor, seeing that the department of labor has jurisdiction over to certified payrolls.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Thank you for that. And I think that's gonna be, one of the areas that I I mean, everything I can't imagine that that any of this is still happening in paper in this day and age. So, so you're not gonna find necessarily an argument from me there, but I will be asking questions and concern you know, sharing the concern that if this mechanism doesn't even exist today, and with we all know how quickly the state of Connecticut moves on, when we need to get something done, which that's that's sarcasm. That's sarcasm. I con am concerned if we don't have you know, we've got an end date that this is that people have to submit by, but there's no mechanism. There's so I would need to know more about that before being able to what the costs are gonna be, the mech you know, just how it comes to pack you know, because you don't just kinda flip a switch and and people start submitting. There's a lot of pieces that have to go into this. So not that I'm not it's not that I don't wanna see this happen, but there's things that have to happen before we, in my opinion, say that this has to be done by a date and there's no that I'm aware of. Maybe there maybe there are plans in place and this is happening behind the scenes, but, that's my concern.

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: They're, they're not happening behind the scenes, but speaking with, our neighboring states that do have the process in place, we're being told that it was quite seamless. So, I think once the, once they get the portal up in place, I think at that time, you know, there'll be a communication out that, you know, the, the, the, we're gonna switch over at a certain date, and at that point, start using the portal. I think in, in the, in our construction industry and the people doing prevailing wage rate work, you know, the contractors would be aware of it. Right? I, I know the CMs would be aware of it. Municipalities would be aware of it. So I think it's not we're not bringing in people from the outside that are already working in the industry that are familiar with it. So I think that piece of it would is not gonna be that big of a concern, quite frankly, representative.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Thank you. I look forward to further discussion on this. I mean, we have we hear about data breaches and, you know, all the time. And so I think that type of security, where we're gonna be having employee records, potentially Social Security information, payroll information. I think I'm not certainly not in some anything is possible, but I think those things somebody's gonna need to give those consideration. You know, there's there's the portal, but then where does that information you know, how does it get in securely, get out? So for further discussion.

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: Correct. I I think I currently I think the Social Security numbers are redacted on certified payrolls. So I, I think we're good there. I think a lot of it is just really names and, and, and hours worked and, and, and gross, pay.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. And may I ask a follow-up question? And and this goes to, the daily the daily record piece, on the the safety. And I completely I remember that, I remember that explosion that that was pretty close to where I live. You know, we heard it from where I live and, and felt the shock, you know, several miles away. And I and I recognize that the on the job safety. If if we go down so that's section I don't know what second lines, 260 to two sixty eight, talk about submitting those and having them available. But if you go down to the following paragraph, it talks about the employer needed to maintain those for a period of time, send them to DECD, submit daily every month. So what is if it's a safety issue, what's the reasoning for hanging on to these after the employee's off the job through you?

[Jay Moore (UA Local 777 Business Agent)]: Well, they certainly, they should be, they should be attached with the certified payroll. That's, that's the intent of that part. So every person that works on that job signs into that job and has a certified payroll attached to their name. As you submit certified payroll on that project, you would submit your daily login sheet.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. I think I follow that. I was just listening to the the safety piece of it is what you emphasized. And I, try to figure out how those two tie together. So, thank you. No further questions.

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: Senator, representative, do you mind if I just say one thing? I mean, I and I'd be remiss if we didn't say so. There's so we're looking to amend the language in that section to have the contractor fill it fill the log out daily and submit it weekly. So, I don't I wanna make sure that and and I and I apologize. We're kind of doing it this together. That wasn't brought up earlier. But, that's something that we're looking for, which makes more sense. I mean, a weekly log certainly is not gonna help people in harm's way, if there is a if there is a tragedy on a job site. So the weekly, we we want them filled out, you know, daily and submitted weekly, which would make more sense. It it would be it it would be better for all the construction workers working on publicly for the projects.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: K. Thank you. And and just a moment of point of

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: clarification, it does the the language in

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: here says monthly, submitted monthly. Monthly.

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: Correct. Correct.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: you're looking to have that weekly?

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: We're we're looking to have it filled out daily, submitted weekly. Yes, sir.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. I'm gonna turn it back over to Cheryl Womackushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I do have an announcement. They have told us that they're going to be close not closing the building but staff are gonna be allowed to leave at two today because the weather seems to be getting worse out there. And I think what they're concerned about is freezing rain, which we understand is coming this afternoon. So what I'd like we've had some discussion and what we're suggesting is if you are on the list to testify in person, would you please let Cameron know that you're here and ready to testify in person? And what we're gonna do is skip over the remote folks and go to the people who are in the room. And then when that's when they're done, when we've gotten through the people that came here, we'll go to the remote folks and but we'll be taking a recess for an hour to give people time to get home. So was that clear? Clear. So so if you're here to testify in person, please let Cameron know, and we'll continue until we've gotten through everybody in the room. And then we'll recess for an hour, and then we'll take the folks who are ready to testify remotely. And so we can all get a chance to get home safely.

[Joe Toner (Executive Director, CT State Building Trades)]: We're all

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: we're gonna split as well.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: You can stay if you'd like, but you don't have to.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: On the meetings.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. The question was, do we have to leave? No. We don't have to leave. You can stay if you want. But, we do want everybody to get home safely. So with that, we'll go to the next person on the agenda, and I'm gonna turn it back over to to to to representative Sanchez, my cochair.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up to speak, we have Leslie Blato. I don't see her remote.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And she's but we should go to the people who are in the room.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That's right. But I don't know if oh, and well, we have next up is Paul Emery.

[Paul Amarone (Connecticut Business & Industry Association)]: Good afternoon, members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Paul Amerone, and I'm a senior policy director for job growth and manufacturing at the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. I've submitted written testimony on several bills before the committee today, but in the interest of time, I'd like to focus on three bills specifically. First, House Bill five zero zero three, an act concerning workforce development and working conditions in the state. While we strongly support sections 30 through 34, much of the remainder of the bill imposes sweeping new mandates that significantly expand employer liability, duplicate existing frameworks, and expose businesses to costly litigation. Section one departs from Connecticut's longstanding workers' compensate compensation system by layering mandatory identification, full wage continuation without the use of accrued leave, and a new private right of action. Employers who are already complying with workplace safety standards would face uncapped and undefined liability exposure. This duplicative, unpredictable, and extraordinarily costly, particularly for healthcare providers already operating under significant financial strain. Section 10 dramatically expands the successor contractor law across numerous industries and lowers the threshold to two employees. Contractors would be forced to retain a predecessors workforce for ninety days with civil penalties of $500 per employee per day. That fundamentally alters how service contracts are structured, eliminates staffing flexibility, discourages competitive bidding, and injects compliance and litigation risk into routine business transactions. Moving on to Senate Bill three fifty five, an act concerning limitations on non disclosure agreements. This bill goes far beyond what most states limit when it comes to NDAs by broadly invalidating non disclosure and non disparagement provisions whenever an individual reasonably believes misconduct occurred. That subjective standard will not reduce disputes, it will generate them. Courts will be asked to litigate whether a belief was reasonable regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. Confidentiality provisions are often critical tools for resolving disputes early, efficiently, and privately. Removing that tool across a broad range of claims does not promote fairness. It increases prolonged litigation, reputational risk, and insurance premiums. Other states have narrowly targeted NDAs and sexual misconduct settlements. This proposal instead creates a sweeping prohibition that dramatically increases compliance, uncertainty, and exposure. Businesses support protecting victims and preventing unlawful conduct. But, Senate Bill three fifty five replaces balance reform with a broad litigation driven model hurting both employers and employees that have benefited from longstanding NDA framework. And finally, moving on to Senate Bill three forty five, specifically section two concerning pre and post shift hours. The Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Del Rio versus Amazon has already expanded compensable time standards by rejecting the federal de minimis doctrine and federal portal to portal alignment. Section two would codify that ruling without adding guardrails, safe harbors, or retroactivity protections. That, the practical problem here is compliance feasibility. Employers would be expected to track the precise moment an employee enters the premise, fluctuating wait times, and incidental pre and post shift movement.

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: Mister Amaron, your time is almost up. Please summarize your remarks.

[Paul Amarone (Connecticut Business & Industry Association)]: For warehouses, manufacturers, retail, and hospitals, that is not operationally feasible and in some cases impossible. Without clarity, employers face retroactive liability, rounding disputes, and wage claims over trivial time increments. This is not about compensating meaningful work. It's about avoiding an unbounded administratively impossible compliance system. CBIA stands ready to work with the committee to craft a workable framework similar to the way the Nevada legislature did just last year that protects workers without imposing open ended liability. Thank you for your time and consideration and I would be happy to take any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

[Paul Amarone (Connecticut Business & Industry Association)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Oh. I apologize.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Representative here. So I don't have any questions but I do look forward to hear this. I look forward to speaking with you and perhaps my colleagues to hear some suggestions for that language. You know, I picked I, on the pre and post screening, you know, I recognize that that decision came down recently and, was curious how that was gonna be perceived to to be affected in this, legislation. And also the NDA that, that, that I agree. We, we've heard some compelling testimony today that, that the they're not one size fits all, but we also wanna make sure that we're not, bringing unnecessary litigation forward or causing more damage, by our us being unclear. So I look forward to hearing some of those suggestions. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Paul Amarone (Connecticut Business & Industry Association)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you representative. No other questions. Thank you, Paul. Next up we have, Zach Levy.

[Zach Lavey (Deputy Director, AFSCME Council 4)]: I'm a start over. Just alright. Good afternoon, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, ranking members, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Zach Lavey, and I am the deputy director of AFSCME Council four, which represents 30,000 public and private sector employees across Connecticut. We support all the concepts raised in House Bill 5,003 and thank the committee for raising this powerful legislation. This bill will provide meaningful relief and real improvements for workers across Connecticut. We wanted to highlight several sections that would directly impact certain sectors of our membership. Council four strongly supports the extension of portal to portal coverage to public works employees in section eight. This winter alone and currently, we have seen how quickly dangerous road conditions can develop when snow strikes. Public works employees are the workers we depend on to make our roads safe, but we need to make sure we protect them as well because there is no one making the roads safe for them as they drive to their trucks and garages. When a public works employee is ordered into work during a weather emergency, they may be driving through municipalities at various stages of snow removal. This is a real hazard, and this important protection will help ensure that the workers we depend on keep our state running also have the support they deserve. We also wanna sincerely thank the committee for extending survivor benefits to the families of correction officers in section 11 and state marshals in section 12 when they tragically die in the line of duty. We would note that the Connecticut state marshals are enrolled in the state employee's health plan and, therefore, not covered by the municipal partnership plan framework referenced in this section, and we encourage any survivor protections fully reflect this distinction. Families should not have the added stress and uncertainty of losing their health insurance while dealing with the sudden loss of a loved one. It is critical that the state protect the families of these public servants and provide them with a period of security when tragedy strikes. We also wanna mention how much we support sections third 16 through 21, which help advance police officer and firefighter recruitment and retention. As the largest law enforcement union in Connecticut, we appreciate the steps this bill takes towards ensuring our towns can attract good recruits and retain talented officers. Allowing officers to attend public higher education institutions tuition free after five years of service would reward tenure and continued commitment to their communities. We also support the creation of a mortgage assistance program to help help officers purchase homes in the communities they serve. Promoting law enforcement as a profession will help ensure our municipalities are safe and well staffed while giving officers meaningful opportunities for stability and career advancement. We ask that the committee amend this legislation to also include correction officers who are law enforcement professionals facing the same recruitment and retention challenges as their count as their counterparts in municipal and state police departments. House Bill 5,003 is a comprehensive approach to workers' rights in Connecticut, and we thank the committee for raising it. We appreciate the opportunity to highlight these sections and urge the committee to support passage of this bill out of committee and through the general assembly. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Representative Weir.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Very briefly, I thank you for your testimony. I'll just focus on the one piece of legislation regarding the portable portal coverage for, municipal employees, public works. And to my knowledge, this is the third year. It could be fourth, could be tenth, but I re I recall hearing it the past, three years and there's been a, my Republican colleagues and I have raised a question just about clarity. We wanna make sure that the employees are covered on their way to work and and back and not anything in between. And and so I'll have to relook at the language, but it's my recollection that there's a that it could be clearer to say if, you know, somebody stops off to run errands while on call in in a section in the first bullet point, that that's made crystal clear that that wouldn't be a covered. And I think the outside of that, there's a 100% agreement that, that that this is a a good initiative. So just wanted to make sure that that the language is clear. I think think you'll see some broad support from that this year.

[Zach Lavey (Deputy Director, AFSCME Council 4)]: Thank you. Thank you. And if I can provide a little, background information on that as well. This language is the exact same, language that provides portal to portal coverage for police officers, firefighters, correction officers, and we recently added dispatchers about five, six years ago. This, language is no different than that, which is, clear and been clarified. For many years, those statues have existed. It is only from the place of, residence to their place of employment. If they stop and get gas, just like with the police officer or correction officer or firefighter or dispatcher, the coverage would stop. This language is consistent with those policies and we hope that since this is consistent with those other workers that seeing how few issues there are with that, that there would be that broad based support with the current language since it mirrors the other language in the statute.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony.

[Zach Lavey (Deputy Director, AFSCME Council 4)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have Michael Adams.

[Michael Adams (Legislative & Political Assistant, AFSCME Council 4)]: Good afternoon Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, ranking members and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Michael Adams, the legislative and political assistant for AFSCME Council four. Our union represents approximately 33,000 public and private sector workers across Connecticut including more than 2,000 municipal police officers. The men and women we represent across Connecticut do one of the toughest jobs in public service. Working nights, weekends and holidays. And, during the physical and mental toll over the decades of service with an average life expectancy being substantially less than that of the general population. That is why retiree health security matters. When some of when some municipalities do the right thing, the current system across Connecticut is uneven. Some officers retire with strong coverage, others face real uncertainty. Their health care needs are often greater compared to when they begin their careers. Council four supports HB five three eight two because it moves Connecticut in the right direction by allowing the state to have a clear full picture of retiree health coverage for police officers. This is also a workforce issue. Departments across Connecticut continue to struggle with recruitment and retention problem. Young officers are asking hard questions about what happens after twenty five years on the job. Long term health security is part of that decision. When departments cannot offer the stability on the back end we will continue to face hiring and retention problems leaving municipalities in a worse situation. After decades of shift work, dangerous calls, and physical wear and tear, officers simply want to know that they will not be left without health care protections when they put down the badge to hand to the next generation of police officers. The bill simply makes sure Connecticut takes an honest look at whether we are keeping our promise to the public safety workers who protect our communities. AFSCME Council for respectfully urges the the Labor and Public Employees Committee to support HB five three eight two. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Any questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Up next we have Michael Baird.

[Michael Berry (CT Coalition for Retirement Security)]: Hi. Good afternoon. Representative Sanchez, representative Weir, and representative Gautier, and the other members of the, Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Michael Berry. I am, from Manchester where I was born and raised, and I am the coordinator for the Connecticut Coalition for Retirement Security. I'm before you today in support of house bill fifty three eighty four, an act concerning hazard pensions for certain traditional employees. As a retired probation officer who worked very closely, who actually receives a hazardous pension, today, I worked very closely with the two job classes in the public defender services and support and service, support enforcement services, both investigators. They were colleagues in, the superior court system with me. These jobs are becoming increasingly more difficult and dangerous in the world in which we live. Many of the homes where investigators are serving support papers or investigators are doing investigation on behalf of defendants have residents who have serious mental health or criminal histories which require these employees to have to think about getting home safely at the end of the day, much like all of us in hazardous duty jobs have to do. These benefits would not be free. The employees of these job classes would have to contribute more to their pensions, three to 4% depending on their tier classification. We want young people to pursue these careers so we get the best possible candidates to do this important work. Hazardous duty is important for retention and recruitment. We want these employees to feel safe in their jobs and to continue in state service until they're able to retire with dignity. The work they do ensures support for families in need, and it also gives all defendants the chance for fair representation when their cases are in court and they go to disposition. Thank you for bringing up this important issue and here's hoping that these siblings of mine in public safety will be able to have retirement security with benefits similar to the ones that I count on every day. I also included some information on a hyperlink, to my testimony about, some pension information in Connecticut from the national pension protection coalition. Thank you so much for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Any questions from the committee? No offense. Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Bye.

[Michael Berry (CT Coalition for Retirement Security)]: Thank you very much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have Jay Thomas.

[Jay Thomas (YWCA Hartford Region)]: Good afternoon Senator Kushner Representative Sanchez and distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Jay Thomas and I work as a community engagement and public policy specialist at the YWCA Hartford region a non profit which has served the Greater Hartford region for more than a hundred and fifty eight years. The organization provides critical programs to the surrounding community including emergency shelter and affordable housing, career training, and youth leadership development. In addition to operating early learning centers and before and after school care for students in grades K through 12 across Central Connecticut. I am submitting testimony in support of SB three fifty three and act concerning reasonable accommodations in the workplace for conditions related to menopause. The YWCA Hartford Region supports the Menopause Equity Labor Bill because it builds on Connecticut's existing pregnancy accommodation law and explicitly recognizes menopause as a condition that can require reasonable workplace accommodations, such as flexible schedules, temperature control, and additional breaks. Further safeguarding employees by requiring employers to provide written notice of menopause related accommodation rights and mandating the Commission on Human Rights and opportunities to develop education materials to be provided on their website. Menopausal transition typically occurs between the ages of 45 and 55 and can be accompanied by symptoms such as mood changes, difficulty sleeping, migraines and joint stiffness. These symptoms while common it can be debilitating and disrupt work. In a global survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management thirteen percent of respondents replied that they had quit their jobs due to menopausal system excuse me, menopausal symptoms. This expansion proposed by SB three fifty three will help employees to understand their rights and defend them against being penalized or discriminated against at their place of work for experiencing a natural part of life. The lack of explicit protections for menopause related conditions is likely costing Connecticut workers. Stanford economist, Petra Pearson conducted a study to measure the economic impact of menopause. She found that there is a notable decline in earnings amongst menopausal women. In fact, women who visited a healthcare provider with menopause symptoms were earning 10% less four years later. The cause cutting back on their work hours or quitting altogether. The lack of education and equitable labor law is actively harming women in the workforce. But leaders can act to protect workers. In 2025, Rhode Island passed HB 6,161, which requires employers to provide workplace accommodations for applicants and employees experiencing menopause related conditions. Connecticut too can take steps to address what has been deemed the menopause penalty. In The United States, an approximate 20% of the labor force consists of women in some phase of menopause transition. We urge the committee to recognize menopause not as a private or individual issue, but as a workforce and equity issue by establishing a clear statewide standard that includes menopause and workplace accommodations. When workplaces recognize menopause as a legitimate health and workforce issue, it benefits both employees and employers. Companies retain experienced workers who have years, sometimes decades of institutional knowledge. That reduce costly turnover and training expenses, maintain productivity, and create workplace cultures where employees feel valued and supported through all stages of life. We ask that employers and government come together to support working women as they transition into menopause. Thank you to Representative Kai Belton for championing menopause equity in Connecticut and for bringing this critical issue to the legislature. We appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of SB three fifty three and at concerning workplace accommodations for menopause. The YWCA Hartford region respectfully urges the committee to pass this bill favorably and recognize menopause as a public health and equity priority in Connecticut. Thank you for your time and commitment to the health, dignity and economic security of workers in Connecticut. I'm happy to take any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you Miss Thomas. Any questions from the committee? Comment?

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Not to move.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Mister chair?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Representative Hughes.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you so much, mister chair. And thank you, miss Thomas, and shout out to rep Belton, fellow social worker for raising this bill for us. Can you just describe it since Rhode Island implemented their legislation? What do you know if the response has been positive, negative, unintended consequences? The reason I'm asking is because I think the pushback when we center workers' health is that this will completely disrupt productivity. And I'd like to hear why WCA speak about that.

[Jay Thomas (YWCA Hartford Region)]: Yeah. That's such a great question. I would love to look into Rhode Island and what has happened since the passage of HB six one six one. I do think it's really important to note that SB three fifty three would be updating existing law to include menopause related conditions as a part of the framework for workplace accommodations. And that's reasonable accommodations. Things like flexible hours, having access to venting and cooling systems, being able to take longer breaks throughout the day. So, things that are fairly affordable. And again, in congruence with the existing law, the accommodations can't be anything that places an undue hardship on businesses, keeping in mind that you don't wanna negatively impact small businesses. So I'd be happy to get back to you to give more context as to Rhode Island and how they've fared since passing their legislation. But, but definitely uplift that these are reasonable accommodations that in most instances are fairly affordable.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you for that clarification because I, again, I think that just, updating existing accommodations is a important framework. I think the the opposition sometimes says, oh, workers are just going to take advantage of this. And as a menopausal woman myself, I can just absolutely testify that we we want to contribute to our jobs. We want to work. We want to be at our full productivity, and we need sometimes minor accommodations to do that, especially that temperature adjustment is so important to, not being completely distracted to the point of not being able to focus and do our job. So thank you so much for your testimony and providing that kind of detail of how this could be reasonably implemented. Thank you, mister chair.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Miss Thomas, I would like to pause for a moment. I think senator Kushner had some questions for you. So just give her a moment. Okay. Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

[Jay Thomas (YWCA Hartford Region)]: Thank you so much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Apologize about it. Up next we have Jocelyn Delancey.

[Jocelyn DeLancey (Vice President, Connecticut Education Association)]: Good afternoon. I'm Jocelyn Delancey. I'm the vice president of the Connecticut Education Association representing over 40,000 active, aspiring, and retired educators across the state of Connecticut. On a personal note, as a approaching my 40 birthday, I do speak in favor of SB three five three, but I am here today to speak particularly in favor of SB five thirty one and HB 5,003 regarding our fair termination process as educators and, adjusting language to workers compensation to ensure that our educators who are injured by students at work are able to receive their full compensation. We're really excited to see that you're taking up this language again in terms of our fair termination process. This is language that is long overdue in terms of ensuring that our educators are receiving the same treatment as other colleagues within the public education workforce. We've heard a couple of, arguments today saying that if we, ensure a just cause standard and binding arbitration in the workforce for our educators, that it takes local control away from the district. I find that to be a little misleading. Our districts have the opportunity to hire their superintendents who are responsible for the hiring and unfortunate terminations sometimes of our members. Those superintendents are following policies and procedures that are established by the boards of education. All of that happens within the school day within the framework of our districts and that is all within their local control. What we're asking for is a fair and consistent process when it comes to termination for our educators so that they understand what they're being disciplined for that the discipline is consistent that it is, in a way that's measured and fair, and that if there is a termination and it leads to a hearing, that that is decided by an impartial, non biased arbitrator who has the information and understands whether or not this is something that merits termination. So when we're looking at this process we understand that all of our other colleagues within that system have access to that system. They have access to just cause and they have access to a binding binding arbitration through their contracts because of the statute. We are not allowed to have that same process. And what we're asking for is that process to be consistent and fair across all groups within the public education system. And so this would allow for our teachers to feel safe, to understand what's expected of them during the workday. And as we're looking at teacher shortages and finding ways to ensure that we are bringing people into this profession and welcoming them into this profession, understanding that they are safe and that they understand the rules and how to, how to work in that system is really important to keeping our teachers in the process. And so that is something that we're asking for. We're glad to see it again. And we really hope to have your support through this process. Thank you. I'll take any questions if you have them.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions of the committee. Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I did have the benefit of having heard you and others testify in the Education Committee public hearing on this issue. But I do as you referenced that there was concern that, it would be taking away local control from the Board of Education. I I heard what you said and I think that's very helpful. There was also testimony that suggested that somehow, and I didn't quite follow it. I don't know if you heard it, but somehow the person making the decision was also the person doing the investigation. And is there anything in this, that would require a change in how the process goes with regard to an investigation? And obviously the decision would still be made, I believe, by the superintendent. But if you could address that a little bit, I was confused.

[Jocelyn DeLancey (Vice President, Connecticut Education Association)]: So I I believe that the superintendent would bring their argument of the work that was done, the issues that were, happening with that person, that that employee, to the neutral arbitrator and that that would be the space where they would weigh the arguments. Just in the same as in any other process that, the the association, we would bring our information, what maybe discipline has happened or not happened, what policies have been violated or not violated. And then that person would look at both of the the stories, told by both parties and look at that information and weigh that on their space, so that they are taking away any bias, any, you know, political, maybe mindset or judgment and really putting it in a space of here's what the policies are, here's what the rules were, this is what's this is the story that happened. And yes it merits termination or no it doesn't merit termination. And that decision is binding based on that person's decision. So while the decision isn't made by the board all of the work going into that process would be done by the superintendent and whoever they're charged with being responsible for that. Our superintendents are charged with hiring our staff and and you know our HR departments are charged with doing the background checks on the staff. The board of education doesn't play a role in that process. They take that information and then they take the word of the superintendent and either hire or don't hire that person or vote on that. But they're not involved in that process. They're not in the investigation they're not in the hiring process. They're kind of at the end of that space. And this would probably this would put them in that same process. Except for that the decision is binding by the by the neutral arbitrator but that happens with all other employees within the school setting.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That was actually gonna be my next question, but, you already answered it, but yeah, that was my understanding that currently employees of the board of education that are under other, contracts and other bargaining units, the same process of neutral arbitration applies to them where the same amount of investigation is done and the same responsibility for the termination, would be with the superintendent or vis a vis the board of education.

[Brooke Foley (Insurance Association of Connecticut)]: Correct.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. That's all I have for you today. Thank you.

[Janelle Grant]: Thank you so much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Up next, we have Jose Tolbano. Jose Tolbano?

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: No?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay, we'll move on to Adrian Deluca.

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: I'm also here with my co counsel attorney Melanie Kolick, Senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, Sanchez, distinguished members of the labor and public employees committee. I testified today in support of Senate bill three fifty one and five zero zero three. My name again is Adrian DeLuca. I am general counsel for the CEA, whom I've been with for the last fourteen years. And for every one of those fourteen years, I have railed against the current teacher termination statute. These bills before you will ensure that teachers have the same constitutional due process rights enjoyed by every other Board of Ed employee and in fact, every other unionized worker, both in the public and private sector. These bills do that in two ways. One, they provide for a just cause standard in terminations because under the current statute, that statute is conspicuously void of any standard whatsoever. They also make the arbitrator's decision final. Again, in the current scheme, the arbitrator who actually hears the case, brings in the evidence, weighs the credibility of the witnesses, merely makes a recommendation that goes back to the Board who is not bound by it. I've been involved in labor well over thirty years. I served fifteen years in the Middletown City Attorney's Office, the last five as their deputy city attorney. I represented this city in all aspects of labor. I did the same as a manager of labor relations for Sikorsky Aircraft. I represented that corporation in their worldwide organized workforce. I really think that gives me the ability to speak from the lens of both management and the labor perspectives. I'd like to address today some of the objections that we've heard to these two bills. First we always hear we're trying to protect bad teachers. We are not trying to do that. Our work is to protect all teachers rights. Second we are not taking the board of ed out of the process. The board should have exactly the same amount of input and involvement in the hiring and firing of teachers as it does for the rest of their employees. But the board should not have the final say for teacher terminations. They don't have that authority for any of their other employees. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for this one carve out. Moreover, no other employer in the state or any other state for that matter who has a represented workforce has the last word in ending someone's career. And that includes our very own state of Connecticut. They employ teachers and administers for the state technical education and career system. The state of Connecticut itself through bargaining has agreed to a single unelected arbitrator whose decision is binding. How do we reconcile that? Another objection we hear we hear is that, well, there's an appeal process and it'll be corrected by that. Well, first of all, an appeal process is not unique to teachers. Everyone has an appeal process. And under the current appeal process which truthfully does not work it's conducted under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act which really makes no sense because boards of ed are specifically excluded from the definition of an administrative agency, and I'd be more than happy to talk more about that. One of the absolute requirements for true constitutional due process is having a neutral decision maker. The reality is, ladies and gentlemen, that local boards of ed, however unintended, are inherently biased under this current scheme. Boards are empowered to make this monumental decision without ever weighing the credibility of witnesses, going over the the evidence, or ever even hearing from the teacher. The issue to prove to you today is not how many of instances of bias can we show. The issue is that the potential for bias is and always will be present in this current statutory scheme. These bills with these proposed amendments will cure all these obstacles to true due process. We're not asking for expanded or special rights. We're just asking for the same rights as every other unionized workforce. Thank you so much for bringing these bills forward. We greatly appreciate it and happy to take any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for the testimony. Every time I hear this issue, talked about, I learn something or think of something new. And I appreciate your bringing to our attention the fact that the CTEC system teachers do have binding arbitration Yes, please. Which I think is really important for us to understand. So if you are teaching in my town in Danbury, if you're teaching at Abbott Tech and you were to be fired, you would be able to go to neutral arbitration. But if you're teaching at Danbury High School, you would not.

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: Correct.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That I hadn't really thought about before, but I think it's really important for us to recognize the difference that we've created probably unintentionally between those two systems. And I think we would expect the same high standards of teaching and, in the CTEC system that we would expect in our traditional public school system. Absolutely. So I appreciate that. Am I also you know, I, I think I wanna ask you a little bit more about the standard you know, the set of a recognized standard, that is set by the words just cause because I have heard questions come up. I think most people who are not in the labor relations field are not really familiar with just cause and what that means. And I know at the hearing in the, education committee, I was appreciative that, one of the witnesses went over the seven I think it's seven.

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: Seven steps.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yeah. The seven steps of just cause. But I think it would be helpful if we had that conversation here too because what I think folks miss is that under the statute, there's a vague there is not a clear standard of what a board of ed or a superintendent would be looking for to establish in terms of the discharge. But with the with the, inclusion of a just cause standard, that is a term of art that is used in labor relations that is well understood, maybe not by boards of ed, but clearly by neutral arbitrators.

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: Yeah. That's it comes from I believe it's a 1964 case. It came from an arbitration case. And, you're right. Currently, there is no standard by which evidence has to be proven in the in our statute. And as we know, we have clear and convincing, more probable than not, beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, just cause is a universally used, universally used, standard, by which evidence has to be proven. And there is a, a seven step test, that employers have to prove. For example, was there a rule? Was the rule known to the employees? Did, did the individual violate that rule, by, significant or substantial evidence? Did other people who violated that rule, were they treated the same? Did they receive the same? So, so yes, I mean, it's universal. And in fact, most teachers have just cause in their collective bargaining agreement for discipline up to suspension. And we never see teachers get suspended because it's much easier to just terminate them because there is no just cause in this statute. So, again, most districts bargain just cause into their collective bargaining agreement for, for discipline, but it stops at, suspension. And honestly, teachers very rarely get suspended. They just go right to termination because it's easier to do that. The level of proof is much less.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think part of the, what we struggle with here in the legislature is that I think we all agree. I it's a non partisan issue that nobody really wants a teacher who's not a good teacher, who's somebody who's a bad teacher, in the schools. And I think that people struggle with that. But of course, the whole just cause standard was established so that someone who's maybe not performing as they should has there's a system to put in place where they know what's wrong, they know what they're doing wrong, and they have an opportunity to correct that before their discharge. And I think that goes to the heart of of what you're asking for in this bill. The other thing that I wanted to ask you about is because you have you've represented at the private sector Yes. And you've been in the public sector with neutral arbitration. Yes. You have been, with the union long enough with the teachers, union long enough to have had experience dealing with boards of ed, one of the things that has influenced my thinking on this is that, as you mentioned, teachers are operating already under a collective bargaining agreement. Correct. And so they know what their obligations are, their responsibilities are in the in the school. They know what their the standards are they're supposed to live up to. When the when they're not living up to it, and when the superintendent is firing them, they're basically saying you broke the rules. You broke, what was established in your contract. I think one of my concerns about a board of ed making that decision or even a superintendent is they're not besides not being neutral, they're not professionals in that regard. They aren't professional labor relations folks. So I think we're asking them to perform a a task that is under most collective bargaining agreements and within the whole system, mostly dealt with by professionals. But we're asking a board of ed to maybe go outside of their, you know, their scope really, stuff they don't really know or understand. So I wonder if you could address that in your experience with labor relations and comparing, you know, neutral

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: Well, just as I mentioned in in some of my comments, we could easily, not easily, but we could win the arbitration. Now, that arbitration is gonna be heard. Usually, they're most, most arbitrators are attorneys trained in labor law. Right? They're trained with regard to, what evidence is relevant, what evidence isn't relevant. They bring all their expertise to weighing credibility, of witnesses, right? The credibility of the teacher themselves. So the very frustrating part of this scheme is that we could win that arbitration. And then it goes to the board who, to your point, is not trained. And it's not their fault. These are good people giving up their time, but they're not trained in any of this. Moreover, once it gets to them, it's over. They don't look at the, the evidence. They are not allowed to hear from the teacher on the night that that recommendation goes. So can you imagine how frustrating it is to win the arbitration award and then lose your job anyway because it goes back to a board who is not trained. This, honestly, I remember the day I got to CEA, and I read that statute, and I read it again, and again, and again. I could not believe I was honestly, I'm, I'm not being overly dramatic. I was so shocked from my experience, both representing Sikorsky aircraft, you know, with the Teamsters and the IAM. And then, having been a city attorney and done many, terminations in front of the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration. That's a panel of trained attorneys, trained arbitrators. So it just the whole schematologist does not make any sense, and it's not fair. And we're just asking for a fair fight. That's all we're asking for.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I I do appreciate your testimony here today. And, you know, I we've we had this bill last year. Yes. We did not get it through the entire process, although we did get it through the senate. And I'm just hopeful that this year, people will have even a better understanding, because I think there's been a a better opportunity to hear from you and to ask questions. So I appreciate, you being here.

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: And I'm I'm so so very grateful that we're at least talking about this and and and really hoping that this goes through and we can resolve this. But thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Madam chair, any other questions, comments from committee? Seeing none. Thank you both for your testimony.

[Dale Cunningham (VP, AFT CT Local 5049; Registered Nurse)]: I have to go.

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: I'm on the list.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That's right. I was gonna call you next.

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: Thank you so much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Just walked over to to clarify that.

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: We're trying to be efficient because we know people wanna get home safely.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. Melanie go go.

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: Thank you so much. Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the committee. My name is Melanie Kolick. I'm legal counsel with the Connecticut Education. And a majority of my practice representing teachers is representing them before the workers' comp commission, and with any sort of work related injuries. I've provided this committee with my written testimony, which I won't necessarily read, line for line, but this is regarding HB, five zero zero three section two, which deals with full pay for assaults. And as your committee knows how that works is that the statute is intended to make up the the difference or the delta between what an assaulted educator in the school system, teachers, paraprofessional, nurses, janitors, administrators, etcetera, to make up the difference between what they receive from workers comp and what they should be receiving for full pay. This is a statute that's been in place since the nineteen seventies. In fact, 1973 is when it went into place. And only in recent years have we seen school districts take to the position that they are not obligated to provide full salary to those employees in assault related absences if the student quote unquote didn't intend to injure the worker. So this interpretation has created some serious and troubling consequences, some significant litigation, especially with the number of assaults with our educators on the rise. For example, I represented a teacher who was struck aggressively in her chest by a student knocking her backward and causing significant injury. This was the third assault by the same student in less than three weeks. The district denied her full salary under the statute, arguing that the child did not mean to hit her because the child allegedly did not understand the difference between right and wrong, which we were required to litigate. It's important to note that this is not an expansion of the law, nor is this new. These proposed amendments simply remove the ambiguities surrounding student intent and make clear that assaulted school personnel are entitled to fair treatment and full salary protection when they're forced to miss work due to injury sustained as a result of an assault. It's a clarification to ensure that protections the legislature intended are meaningfully upheld. Now, there's been some concerns expressed that we've heard from school districts that this could become a legal issue, costing the district additional legal fees. We are already there. If you look at some of the legal cases, Gorman, Patry, Haddad, even the Dunlap case which I litigated, these are perfect examples of why we need the legislature to clarify exactly what they meant when they put the statute into place. So that moving forward, we can ensure that our teachers, and all educators in the school, because it's for everyone working within the school to address. And I fear that if it's not addressed, that we risk driving assaulted educators out of the profession, and deterring future educators from entering it. And unfortunately, in the cases that I've just cited, and many more, those teachers that I've represented have decided to leave teaching all together because they weren't being adequately supported by their school district. I welcome any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Any questions from the committee?

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: At the very end of your testimony, you talked about, all school employees. So this isn't just about teachers. Right? This is paraeducators. It could be somebody in the cafeteria. It could be any person that is employed by the Board of Ed, who is struck or assaulted, by a student.

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: That's correct, madam chair. The the statute, as it was drafted and is in place since 1973, has intended to include all school personnel, from everywhere from your, lunch care your, your lunch worker all the way up to an administrator.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And you you mentioned that this has only recently become an issue that previously it was understood to it was not required that you approved intent. So about when did that shift take place?

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: I would say it probably took place within the last ten years. I've been legal counsel with the CEA for the last fifteen and pro I would say ten years is a fair guess. Okay.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So, up until that time, there was no dispute, but somebody began to challenge it.

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: Correct. Okay.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Well, it seems like something we should get done. Yes. But but that will come at the committee level,

[Melanie Kolick (Legal Counsel, CEA)]: the next step. Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. Thanks.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, manager. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you both for your time.

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: Thank you so much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Up next, we have, Sarah Parker from Kermit.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Thank you. Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, and distinguished members of the Labor Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of SB three forty seven, increasing the threshold amount for felony unemployment compensation fraud. My name is Sarah Parker McKernan and I'm a legislative policy advocate for Connecticut's legal services programs which include New Haven Legal Assistance, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, and Connecticut Legal Services. The legal services programs provide free legal services to low income individuals in civil matters throughout the state. We have been particularly involved in developing policy to support low wage workers and their families. The legal services programs support language of SB three forty seven as this proposal increases the threshold dollar amount from $500 to $2,000 for determining whether incidents of an unemployment compensation fraud are considered a misdemeanor or a felony. This threshold has not been changed since it was created in 1978. For workers collecting unemployment compensation benefits who finally find a new job, it could be as long as a month before they actually get their first paycheck. Many employers pay biweekly and some withhold the first paycheck. During that time, the worker is without income. The continuation of unemployment compensation benefits may seem like the logical way to bridge that income gap until their first paycheck comes through. Unfortunately, those who continue their UC checks, mistakenly or not, while waiting for their that first paycheck can be charged with a felony for fraudulently accepting an overpayment. So I just wanna make clear too that no one's asserting that this is not a fraudulent issue. Just that the circumstances surrounding these situations don't rise to the level of a felony. Both because the app of the absence of intentional deceit and the failure to align the threshold with the statutory definition of a felony action. So we're going back to needing to make sure that whoever is actually, you know, accused of a fraud doesn't rise to the level of a felony if they are only dealing with, a situation where it's less than $2,000 in question. And again, I think that we need to make sure that people who are doing this innocently are actually not challenged for the rest of their lives with a felony conviction. So that's where we're going with this. I know that this is not new to many of you. So, if you've got questions, please let me know.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Senator, question.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I I Yes. It's not new to me and it's something I feel strongly about, but I I think I heard something I didn't know before. I think I knew that this was long standing that it was at this level, but you I think you just testified it was set in 1978.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So it's been a very long time since they've and it has so what we're asking is for them to actually modernize how they're looking at this. Everybody is still liable for whatever happens. They're liable for repayment of whatever the overpayment was as well as 50% in fines, 50% on top of the overpayment that they're paying back, and they're potentially could go to jail for a year too. So these are all things that they're responsible for, they're liable for, but the amount of money involved is minimal in terms of what larceny actually is in our criminal statutes. It doesn't meet those standards. It's a very different way of applying those standards. So that's all we're asking for is that they look at the whole situation.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And the larceny that you spoke of that

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: standard in the state,

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think is $2,000 is that?

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Yes. Yes.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That's the same as what this is being pegged to.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Absolutely. Right now, it's only 500. You can be become a felon if you're guilty of a $500 overpayment. And that actually is around a week of pay, you know, that you would be getting if you're getting your unemployment comp check. And the DOL has also said that, the vast majority of these incidents, the ones that we're talking about anyways, are because people didn't understand that they couldn't be getting that paycheck, or the UC check when they're looking when they're waiting for their first payment paycheck to come through.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I I think that the last thing you said is important because, we have heard in the past when we have debated this bill in this committee, people say, well, it's very clear on the form that it asks whether or not you're employed when you file your app your, claim each week, for unemployment. And, it's interesting that even DOLs would suggest that oftentimes people are confused, still don't understand it. So but that has been your experience?

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Absolutely. And you're you'll hear more testimony and I think there's been some written testimony that was submitted by other attorneys at legal services who have so many cases like this where, somebody's been accused of fraud, because of an overpayment, and then they've been able to once they go in and explain the situation, there's some sort of misunderstanding either from the person or from something that DOL told them in in by mistake. So there's definitely sit I mean, the situation is just, you know, people not understanding what the actual what they're supposed to be doing. It's as simple as that.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for your testimony. I don't know if there's any other

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Representative Wirt.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your testimony. And I so in the instance where it was clearly a misunderstanding and that DOL was involved and and acknowledged that if I may maybe I misheard you, but in that last exchange, I thought you said that if if, you know, the DOL has recognized that there are sometimes these these issues are caused by a misunderstanding. What's been the resolution when there's when it's knowingly a you know, it's clearly a misunderstanding?

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Well, they will pull the overpayment issue, the fraudulent issue. Some of our folks have actually still been eligible for benefits because that's what they applied for, but mostly it's just that they drop the felony accusation, the over fraud.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So the excuse me. So the Department of Labor will drop the accusation? Yeah. Okay. So so I under you know, I understand that, and I understand that mistakes happen and that it could be confusing on the fourth. I I guess what I go to is the, you know, line four, the, you know, five words, knowingly makes a false statement. So that it begins, any person who knowingly makes a false statement. And I think that's a burden that needs to be proven. That it seems to me that working through DOL, if the person was explaining, like, this is a mistake and DOL recognizes that this person made a mistake and they have the ability to withdraw that complaint. To me, that seems like a reasonable way to, to address this. But when it's proven that the person knowingly made that a fraudulent statement, this was not a mistake. They intended to defraud. Mhmm. You know, it seems like there's already safeguards in place for for the person who makes a mistake. And so I'm concerned, and I'm kinda hanging my my concern on this is the person is the person who knowingly did this.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: But we're we're not disputing that. We're not asserting that they didn't that fraud was not committed because they did misrepresent what they were doing, whatever it was. Whether it was by mistake or, you know, they didn't realize because they didn't realize what they were supposed to be saying. So no. But the thing is, it's not just that, you know, they they did something they weren't supposed to unknowingly a lot of the time, but we're just saying they shouldn't be a felon because of that if the amount of money in question is less than $2,000 That that's our point here is we're just trying to changing the threshold so that they are guilty of a misdemeanor. They still are liable for all of the it's just that they won't be a felon. That's all we're asking for. We're not saying they didn't commit fraud, we're not asserting that fraud wasn't part of what was going on.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. And thank you thank you for that. I think those are two different scenarios, you know, listening to the exchange with the good chairperson. And your you know, you there are two two different well, maybe there's multiple different scenarios, but there's scenario where a person made a mistake on the form, you know, maybe got a little it it was an error or or it could be construed as an error. It was clearly not, you know, they did it and maybe it was intentional, but they didn't real, you know, didn't know that they were gonna be

[Adrian DeLuca (General Counsel, CEA)]: The input

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: They were committing a price. It's a mistake. Okay. That is, to me, different. And then that can be work worked through with the DOL. But that's a different scenario than what you're describing where they knowingly committed fraud, and now you're asking for the penalty to be the threshold to be raised, which is, you know, clarification that this is, you know there is a safeguard in place, it seems, and several off ramps by working through the DOL for a person who mistakenly made a false statement. They made a false statement, but it was done by accident. Right? They checked the wrong box. Yes. They did it, but they didn't do it knowingly. Right? That to me is different than, than the person who knowingly made a false statement knew they and it seems to me that would have to be proven. Right? That it's and and that the DOL seems willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if it's close. So or they clearly didn't do it. So I I I just wanted to draw that distinction. And I understand what you're asking for. I'm struggling with with the person who knowingly committed fraud against the State of Connecticut and, and the system. But I I will continue to listen, and I thank you for your testimony.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: But now I have another question. Because, I'm assuming that the people you represent, they go into a hearing for there's a hearing process for overpayment. Is that how and during that time, they acknowledge that they were guilty of an overpayment, but they didn't understand that they didn't have a choice, they didn't have any money to pay the rent, feed the kids, they weren't getting paid on the new job, whatever their reasoning is. Is it, does DOL then have the ability to say, Okay. We accept that you made a mistake and so therefore, you're not a felon?

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Well, it depends who made the mistake. A lot of times, it can be because DOL told them the wrong information too. So and that is some of our cases, a a good share of our cases too is that they didn't DOL didn't misunderstood what our client had was telling them too. That can happen a lot, and that is part in in that our person, our client could get charged with fraud. But I think that for the most part, it is they still have to if they've been charged with this as a miss, they're not gonna get out of being liable. They still will be liable for something. I think that even if there's a mistake that's been made, that's still considered fraud. We just want to make sure they're not gonna be a felon. That that's what we're talking about. Talking about. Right. So DOL is reluctant to probably drop something if our if our client actually, you know, intentionally misrepresented something. Even if it was a mistake, they're still guilty of fraud.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think that's the nuance here that's Yeah. That I think we're struggling with or I think representative Weir has expressed that. It's a nuance as to, it appears to me that unless DOL drops the case and says, okay, you don't have to pay it back. You don't there's penalties. Right? It's it's the extra 50% plus I believe you can't collect unemployment for a period of several years going forward. So if they're going to exact those penalties, get the money back, get 50% fine, and prohibit you from getting unemployment for several years, can they do that and say, But you're not a felon. We're just gonna make this a mis misdemeanor? Do they have that option from misdemeanor? Do they have that option from DOL?

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Currently.

[Tammy Atkins (Workers’ Compensation/Disability Rep, MEUI/SEIU Local 506 & 511)]: No. Currently.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: No. That's what I I think that maybe where there's some misunderstanding. I don't think they have that flexibility to do that. Yeah. Yeah. No. I think this is important because we've been having this discussion for a

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: long time. I think it's important when you're in the room because to whatever the next meeting is will be like this

[Janelle Grant]: where she

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: said so I but I heard you say earlier that they do have the discretion to perhaps let it go if restitution is made or it was a, yes, they're guilty, but it was an it was an error or a mistake. Then DOL does have the discretion to drop the charges or not pursue it.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: If if if I think if they determine that that mistake was something that was that that maybe because of something DOL did, then they can drop it. Yeah.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And what but also if DOL if DOL caused the made the mistake, but also if the person checked the wrong box, right, they it it it was deliberate, it was intentional, but it was by mistake, you know, yes, that person checked the box, but they didn't know exactly what they were checking. What I heard you say is that DOL has a discretion to say, we recognize this was an error even though it was intentional. Right? You or even though you're not due those benefits, it was an error on your part, we'll we'll let it go if you if you make restitution. Do they have that discretion?

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: I don't think so. I think that that still remains. They're still going to be guilty of fraud, for doing that, and that's that's part of the reason why this should not be a felony, is that this this group of folks that we're talking about are not doing this intentionally for the most part, and they're dealing with such a small amount of money that it doesn't even meet our criminal statutes in terms of what should be considered a felony.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So madam chair, I guess what I would ask because I don't I'm not getting the clarification, maybe a direct discussion with DOL on to what exactly they have the discretion would be in one order.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I I think that that's correct, but I also think if you could gather some evidence for us. I mean, even if DOL has that discretion and you're talking about somebody somebody in DOL who adjudicates these cases. Right? Right. If even if they have that discretion technically, are they using it? Because that could be a problem as well. So I think we it would really help if you have, attorneys in your office. I know there's I think there's other people signed up to testify remotely, and we will hear that testimony today. But if there is some evidence you can show us, before we get to our, meeting, committee meeting to JF Phils, I think it would be helpful to continue this conversation because I hear what representative Weir is saying and I've always I've always felt that there what I've heard from your testimony and others is that they don't have that discretion to say, yes, it was a mistake, but yes, it was intentional and we're gonna drop the any of these, we're not gonna make it a felony. I don't even know if they have the discretion to say it's not a felony, but we're gonna make it a misdemeanor. No. It seems like they would only have the discretion to say it's either a felony or it's nothing and there's no penalties. And I'm wondering if that is sort of the the nuance we're getting to where we want we don't want somebody in that category to either be all or nothing that we wanna get the misdemeanor, we wanna get the fine, we wanna penalize them, but we also don't want them to be a felon. Because when we make someone when someone becomes a felon, there are tremendous barriers, which we know exist to getting jobs, to getting housing. We're not just this is somebody who could be in a situation where they could no longer get access to public housing, which is a consequence of being a felon. And I'm not sure that's where we're wanna go on this kind of a case. So I think that's sort of the essence of what we're battle you know, what we're struggling with.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Thank you. That's exactly what's going on. It's just that label as a felon really means that they're not gonna find a good job for a long time.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And And

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: they might not have access to housing. Yeah.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Correct. And I will have a lot more sympathy for that person if they made a mistake or intentionally versus, hey, I was trying to get one over. But I guess that the other clarification piece would be if the DOL has the discretion you know, maybe they can't change it from a felony to a misdemeanor, but I think they have the discretion to withdraw the complaint. You know, do they have just to say, look, you make restitution, we're just gonna close the case. They obviously, they can't change the penalty other than just I

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: don't even know if they can that's a good question for DOL. Can they even allow

[Timothy Condon (President, Montville Professional Firefighters)]: you

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: just to make restitution? Because I'm not sure that's within their purview.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: From from what I know, I don't think that's an option.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yeah. Alright. This was very helpful. I know you are the last person in person, I believe. Is there anyone else in the room that is here to testify? Okay. That's why I was looking around the room. We are gonna take everybody thank you for being here, and we are gonna take everybody that's here in person, but then we are going to recess and, resume remotely. So go ahead. I assume. And also if there's anybody who's not signed up, but is here to testify, we also would do that at this time. Sure.

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: Good afternoon.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Do you have any reason?

[Dr. Linda Sprague Martinez (Director, UConn Health Disparities Institute; Professor)]: I don't

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: know what those glasses. I can't even remember what I said. I I seriously didn't know it was you.

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: That's okay.

[Jo Ellen Leon (Director, Foundation for Fair Contracting of Connecticut)]: I can't

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: get over these glasses.

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: Yeah. It's age, right? It happens. Distinguished Chairs, Ranking Members, and honorable members of the, Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Jeffrey Tomchick. I'm the Director of, Legislative and Political Affairs for the UPFFA. Our organization represents over 4,000 firefighters across the state. I'm here to speak to you about, my strong support for the, proposed legislative measures aimed to protect the health, safety, and financial security, for Connecticut's first responders to police officers and firefighters. Specifically, I'm gonna briefly talk about Senate Bill, three four nine and act concerning modifications to the Firefighters Cancer Relief Fund. I first want to let you know our sincere appreciation for all the work that went into our cancer benefit, as well as the funding mechanism. But the treasurer's office, which has been a great asset to us, has explained that they would needed to do a couple of, minor changes to their accounting measures, which would provide, a little bit more fiscal oversight, between them and the committee that regulates that, the benefit and the fund. So we are in strong support of that. As well as House Bill 5,382, an act requiring the Comptroller to conduct a study of health insurance coverage for retired police officers and firefighters. You know, what we asking here is that we're recognizing, it is a losing benefit that, firefighters and police officers have, have foregone, which is, the healthcare in retirement. And we understand that there's a significant fiscal responsibility to, the municipalities in supporting that. But what, what we also recognize that the comptroller, the partnership plan and some other services out there, could fill a gap in, in, in the missing benefit from, retirement to the age that, one of those members reaches, 65 and can move over to, Medicare. So those are, that's a vital, resource that I think the state could, could, study and, and be up to come up with alternative resources for our municipalities. But most importantly, I want to speak about House Bill five three eight five, which is an act concerning undue delay in workers compensation claims by police officer and firefighters. Where we are with this is not, in a position to, point fingers and assess blame in some failures of the workers' compensation system. What we're really trying to figure out is if a study can prove inefficiencies and how we can improve those. Where we're seeing some significant failures in the system is identifying, the physical injuries, getting the proper treatments and then getting the members to return back to work. And we see this time and time again. Most recently I can relate the story of the biggest, the big snowstorm that we just had last Monday. We have a member that had, sustained an injury while attempting to assist a, a patient in medical need. That, that member was transported by ambulance to the hospital, received the initial care, but they needed to do follow-up orthopedic care, which included an MRI. Currently, to date, they're still waiting for authorization to get an MRI. The treatment already could be in place. They could be receiving physical therapy or recommended surgery, whatever the case may be. And then, be returning back to the, back to the workforce, that much quicker. So, we feel that a study and these delays could really identify, how we can improve, the efficiencies of of the of the workers compensation. So that's, that's my testimony. I will be submitting written, so that you all can review those those statements and I certainly will entertain any questions that you may have.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That was helpful to hear the example that you just gave. But I would think in terms of the study, that's the kind of information that we'd be looking to get from from your members and from the I know this was also for law enforcement, so we'd wanna make sure that we really understood where the hang ups are. I think we on this committee hear every year about in fact, that term undue delay in workers' compensation has been before us on many occasions, although this is a little bit different than what we've heard in the past where there's been specific recommendations about, you know, the the different forms that have to be filed and when they have to be filed. I think that doing this study will maybe help give us guidance on what the specific problems are because I don't think there's anybody on either side of the aisle that believes there should be delays in person getting workers' compensation. But we haven't quite had the benefit of a proposal that really can fix, you know, can tell us how do we fix those problems. So even on the, the example that you gave about the MRI, like, how do you think that could have been fixed?

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: Well, I think again, this isn't a blaming issue. It's just an experience issue what we're seeing and what we're not understanding is if there is a systemic bureaucracy process in the, from the insurer that restricts the rapid answering of or authorization of these tests or treatments to to go through a process of verification of whether or not it's an injury. And we believe that a study process rather than just requesting a specific, legislative change could identify where where it needs to be addressed. Is it a workers comp issue? Is it an insurance issue? Or is it something that that both parties could work together to absorb, you know, outside of the legislature completely? So that's really where where we we need to, we need a data set or a data pool of understanding to to really decide where we can make some efficiencies in this process.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And in terms of the the data that we would need to begin to do that analysis, I I think what I'm hearing you say is that it could be coming straight from workers' comp, not getting through the processes quickly enough, or it could be an insurer who's an insurer who is setting up. Not everybody goes to a private insurance for their benefits. Right? Is it always an insurer that's in between the individual and the workers comp system or is it sometimes directly applying to workers comp for the benefit?

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: It's it's the insurer or or in some particular cases, a municipality may be self insured.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay.

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: In in which case, I don't I I couldn't speak to if that improves or or decreases

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think that's what I was getting at. I wonder if they're self insured, if we're seeing a smoother process versus an insurer, I think that would be helpful if we started thinking about the gut and you could help us think through what would be the parameters of the study, what we'd be looking to analyze, that would be helpful.

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: Absolutely. And I think that what the with the current setup we have, the insurer has the ability to to make some immediate decisions. As an example, if if a firefighter would happen to be transported from a scene of a a fire or major incident in an ambulance to to to be treated with immediate emergency medicine. That particular scenario, the insurance company will most likely just grant or approve a payment method that's saying that this would be a coverable injury. Then there are some nuance injuries where a twist falls, sprains, trying to identify what the worker was doing. Is this a systemic workplace issue or is this a infraction or or outside of the scope of the of the workers ability. And and I would assume that, and I don't wanna speak for them, but they would need their their their time frame to really analyze what the injury was related to. But if they have the flexibility again in that emergent aspect, maybe there there could be an ability for them to immediately off do the complete the authorization and then conduct their their investigation of the injury itself through the the healing process before they return to work. There has been cases where, you know, if there's if there's third parties involved where a potential I think the best example I can give is is is, you know, in in our, the police and and and the fire line of work, we're constantly have vehicles on the road. And if a vehicle gets into a motor vehicle accident, there is always that third party insurer involved in that situation. And I know that, a workers compensation insurance company has the ability to lien benefits based on awards given in a third party action. So if they have the ability to do that, there should be the ability for an insurer to say, we will cover this injury, but we're gonna lean it just in case that a test or an investigation reveals that you were working outside your scope or this injury is not based on the circumstances you expressed, then we can push that claim over to your your private or self insurance company.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think we forget too that most of these employees, if not all, have insurance through the city. So sometimes it's just a matter of who's gonna pay for it. Whether it's coming out of workers comp or or out of your other insurance that you you have as your as your health insurance, not related to your to your job per per say. Right? You're

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: you're correct and that adds another issue not necessarily on the undue, undue delay issue, but there are certain aspects like, I work in the city of Danbury. Danbury has a hospital. Our interaction with the hospital is so familiar whether, you know, I get treatment personally in the hospital. I'm I'm now a recorded patient. If I go to the hospital because of work, the the hospital will initially look at my medical information, my personal information, and immediately charge my my private insurance before recognizing and capturing the claim number that would be awarded from a delay perspective from from the workers comp carrier. So, yes, there is all these different insurance companies, I don't wanna say every single one of them wanna avoid payment, but there is certainly that nexus of trying to figure out who's responsible for paying this. And it does often create confusion, but more importantly, delays the ability for the member to to seek treatment and get back to work.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That was actually really the first time I heard it expressed that way. So we're really trying to get the person treated and back to work and then we'll figure out who's responsible to pay.

[Jeffrey Tomchik (UPFFA – Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of CT)]: Yes.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. That was helpful. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Any other questions or comments, from the committee? Seeing none. At this time, we're gonna go into recess for one hour. We'll be back with you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So I'm wondering

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: if we

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: could, mister chairman, make that like 03:15 just so we have a set so we're not coming back at 03:07.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That's fair.

[Paul Amarone (Connecticut Business & Industry Association)]: That'd be easier.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: We should probably do that. Alright. We will recess until 03:15. Thank you.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Just one more announcement. Any I I think, mister Clerk, you told us that you're gonna remain in the room, that there will have to be somebody in the room, at all times for the rest of for the remaining of the hearing. And so if somebody does show up in person here because they didn't get notified, we'll be able to hear their testimony, even though we're remote, there will be they will be able to testify from this room. Okay. So we're in recess till 03:15. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Good afternoon everyone. We will now reconvene the Labor and Public Employees Committee hearing, public hearing. The time is now 03:15. I will give a moment to the panel and attendees in the waiting room to ready themselves. Okay. I I believe I see our next speaker, Leslie Bledo.

[Lesley Blatteau (President, New Haven Federation of Teachers; AFT CT Vice President, PreK Division)]: Hi. Good afternoon. Just getting situated myself. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Take your time.

[Lesley Blatteau (President, New Haven Federation of Teachers; AFT CT Vice President, PreK Division)]: Appreciate it. Good afternoon, senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Leslie Blato. I'm a resident of New Haven and a parent of a fifth grader in New Haven Public Schools. I'm also the president of New Haven Federation of Teachers representing 1,800 certified educators in our schools and the pre k divisional VP for AFT Connecticut and the steering committee chair for Connecticut for All. I testified today in support of Senate Bill three fifty one, which strengthens Connecticut's ability to recruit and retain hardworking educators who are the backbone of our schools and who support our students every day. The bill ensures that educators are treated with fairness, and have the right to due process, specifically during challenging times when they might be facing employment decisions that should be based on the facts of the case rather than any bias or background noise. What we're seeking is the benefit of fair treatment of educators similar to all other public employees. At a time when less college graduates are considering joining us in our field and more of our colleagues are resigning or retiring early, these protections are essential to retaining dedicated educators in our schools and classrooms. I'm also testifying regarding house bill five zero zero three with, some support and some concerns. Firstly, I support section two because educators who are injured at work deserve full compensation and fair treatment, should not be subject to lost sick time or wages. In addition, I support section 15 in order to protect educators' rights to bargain over payroll deductions. Unions rely on the stability of such protected payroll deductions in order to continue to organize for the schools and communities that students and working families deserve. We have seen our union siblings and other states endure anti union attacks that weaken workers' rights and protections. And this is, this is a time when our state can stand up to these kinds of far right attacks and demonstrate a commitment to working people and the organizations that represent them. Lastly, I would like to raise some questions and concerns about section 34 of this bill, the study of co instruction models in charter schools. We have many significant examples of co instruction in our public schools that could also be studied. In fact, I began my own teaching career engaged in co teaching as both a student teacher and an early career educator. These opportunities were the result of bold and visionary leadership from both my professors and my building principal at that time. The proposed language that allows individuals without professional certification to work alongside certified professionals leaves me with more questions than confidence. Who's the teacher of record in situations like this? How do we ensure appropriate ratios for our students so that instructional time with certified educators is prioritized and protected? There is not enough substantive language in this section to convince me that we should include it in the final bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I appreciate the work that you do for working people every day.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions of the committee? Seeing none thank you for your testimony today. Okay next on our list that we have is Chad Cardillo We have Drew McWeeney next.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Good morning. Well, actually, good afternoon. Labor and Public Employees Committee. Hope you're all staying safe out there. My name is Drew McQueen. I'm an assistant professor of early childhood education. I'm the program chairperson over at CT State Norwalk Community College. And I wanted to provide my thoughts, this afternoon about a bill that I have concerns about, which is s b three five one, an act establishing a just cost standard for teacher termination decisions and requiring termination hearings to be before a neutral arbitrator. I have submitted written testimony, so I'm gonna, highlight three, key items now. The first side of the point is section d retains the six enumerated grounds for terminating tenured teachers. However, it then states, quote, the standard of review for all such reason shall be just cause. So my question is is if the statute already defines specific termination grounds and those grounds already constrain termination, then what does the whole just cause clause even add? Does it override the enumerated categories? Does it supplement them? Does it create a second analytical layer? Does it collapse everything into a broader labor law standard? I I think this bill doesn't clarify that. Also, is the elimination of a position automatically just cause, or would elimination also have to meet a fairness test? The second item of point is that the bill, as it's written, applies the just cause to non tenure teachers. However, historically, non tenure functions as that probationary status with the broader employer discretion. So my question is if probationary teachers must now be terminated for just cause, then one, what practical distinction remains between tenured and non tenure status? Two, does non renewal now require cause beyond enumerated statutory reasons? And three, is tenure even worth anything? The third item of point is that this bill indicates that when termination is based on incompetence slash ineffectiveness, quote, the hearing shall be limited to to twelve total hours of evidence and testimony, six per sides in parentheses. Complex performance cases often involve multiple evaluations, expert testimony, documentations. I just think six hours per side is a joke. Good cause extension is allowed, and I I can see that, although it's undefined. So I'm looking for justification for why it's only twelve hours. Personally, I went through a a custody case myself, and it took months to litigate. So I can't see how twelve hours would be enough to litigate this type of process. And then finally, the bill retains the following, quote, termination due to elimination of position. And, again, it applies just cost. So if a position is eliminated due to budget cost, then can an arbitrator overturn it as not just cause? Can the arbitrator second guess budgetary priorities? I don't think this bill clarifies whether any sort of economic decisions are insulated from review or if they're fully reviewable. So I am not an expert in educational law. I'm an expert in early childhood, but I know enough about this area to ask the right questions. So I just hope you can, consult with the right people for this bill or just get rid of it, completely. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts on, this bill.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Senator Sampson.

[Senator Rob Sampson (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McQueeney, thank you for being with us today. I read through your testimony, which was extremely, well thought out and, really, you know, causes you to think about a different, several different aspects of this bill and whether or not the language actually achieves a final, result that, is concrete enough to, to qualify as statute. I think that our laws ought to be clear, written so that everyone understands them, that they apply to everyone fairly. And you've brought up a number of instances in your testimony where I don't think that actually happens. So, I want, I want to thank you for, for first doing the good work of looking through the bill and questioning the language in ways that, really should cause this committee to pause before it moves forward. But I also noticed that you probably didn't have enough time to cover all of the things that you wanted to based on your testimony. Are are there other reasons, that you, oppose this bill or would I'd like to at least raise attention to, while we have you through you, mister chairman?

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yeah. I actually do have a laundry list, but I'm gonna try to streamline this just for, cohesiveness. So first, according to line seven of the bill, quote, the standard of review for all such reasons shall be shall be just cause. So in other words, this bill doesn't even clarify just cause. That's really concerning because without a definition, my fear is that arbitrators might might apply inconsistent standards across districts. And, this is gonna effectively delegate policy making to arbitrators, and I don't think we're gonna want that. I think that we're walking in some dangerous category. We're walking in some uncharted territory with that. Also, it says the bill says the hearing officer shall render a written disposition. That is actually in the bill in line, I believe, one thirty one looking. Ah, yes. Line, one zero seven. The hearing officer shall render a written disposition that shall be binding on the party. So in other words, the elected board will no longer make the final determination decision because a private arbitrator does in this case. But my question is, does this bill clarify whether this is grievance arbitration? Does it clarify whether it's subject to public accountability rules? Does it clarify transparency requirements beyond optional public hearing? The other thing was it said application to confirm, vacate, or modify pursuant to, 52,417, 52,419. So, you know, these are very narrow arbitration review standards. You know, it seems to be a theme here. Again, the party shall equally share the fee of the hearing officer and all other costs. You know, so I take issue with that, Senator Sampson, because what happens if the arbitrator acts in bad faith? What if the board prevails, sliding scales, clarification of what all other costs include. And I just I just think this could either deter districts from pursuing legitimate terminations or it might shift the burden on teachers into settlement due to due to cost exposures. I think what's more concerning though, Senator Sampson, is the fact that they state the American Arbitration Association's expedited process. And that comes later, that comes later in the bill. And there's no qualification requirements for this. There's no requirement for education law expertise. There's no recusal standards. There's no conflict of interest disclosure. So, you know, these are grave concerns. They they have to be addressed.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Senator Samuels.

[Senator Rob Sampson (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you very much, mister chairman. I I agree, mister McQueeney. I think that you raised a lot of very important points about, the lack of specificity in the bill language. But as far as the substance of the bill, I mean, let, let, let me just, I, I, I'm not discounting anything you've said. In fact, I plan on, you know, raising those issues myself as this bill, moves forward and, and trying to address each one of them individually. But, but on the substance of the subject matter, it seems like a little bit of a battle kind of between whether or not board of educations boards of education should have the final say whether the or we should be using this new just cause system and some level of arbitration. Can you just speak to where you stand on that and maybe give me some insight on on why why this might be good or bad through you, mister chairman?

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yeah. Absolutely. So my my academic opinion on this is that hearing officers we know are selected through a lot of statutory procedures. They have to meet professional qualifications, of course. And they're already trusted to make binding, binding findings a fact. So logically, if hearing officer if we're saying that if the claim is that hearing officers are competent to determine facts that bind boards, and there really should be no principle reason why they are incompetent to apply those facts to the statutory standards. And that answers the question as terms of the viewpoint of boards of vets. They are elected to govern. They're not elected to adjudicate. And I think that's really important. A board that initiates a termination, hears recommendations, and then makes final decisions, that's not structurally neutral. I we need to separate prosecution from judgment. So, I I think that answers that answers your question. Boards of eds are elected to govern, not elected to adjudicate.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Senator Sampson.

[Senator Rob Sampson (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yep. Thank you very much, mister chairman. I I appreciate that, insight. You I think you started, your testimony by talking about your your background. Maybe you could just expand on, on how your personal experience basically gives you, some insight into this proposal, through you, Mr. Chairman.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yeah. So I, well, I'd like to talk about Waterbury. So when I finished undergraduate, I majored in early childhood education, teacher education. And I worked in the Waterbury public schools. That was my first job. I was a birth to three, developmental specialist. So I went out into the community to service the, the kiddos that were under, two years old. I loved every minute of it, but a friend of mine, I taught kindergarten, got hired in Waterbury the same around the same exact year as me. Families loved him. His students loved him. You know, at the school he worked at, he actually tied with another teacher for building of the year, and he actually was in the running for the, the prestigious milk and educator award. It was so cool because I learned a lot from him, and it was just it was really cool. But out of nowhere, he was called into the principal's office one day, and he he was told that he was just being relieved of his duties. No explanation, no evidence, no due process, just the blink of a hat gone. And he found out from a friend in central office shortly after that he was being, he was being relieved of his duties because there was a Department of Children's and Families case that opened up on him. And they they determined that he did nothing wrong, but he never got his job back. So it's mind boggling to me, senator Samson, because eventually the principal herself, it turned out, had filed the report and made the decision. And the principal's decision was had nothing to do with the teacher's quality. It had to do with that she politically disagreed with the teacher and looked for any way to try to get rid of him without using the argument of, well, fundamentally, I disagree. So it's it's it's like it's it's insane. It's like, whatever happened to innocent until whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? A teacher's life is derailed because of it. Students were stripped of a quality educator and the principal is still sitting pretty behind her desk, you know, polishing her principal nameplate. So, you know, as a teacher seeing other teachers go through administrative school administrator bullying, we have to do better. We have to do better to make sure that teachers are treated equally. However, I think boards of educations, they have way too much power. If they're, again, initiating a termination for they should not be they should not be making decisions of final fact. So that's just my experience, being a classroom teacher in the trenches, actually seeing really decent people that I've looked up to that have lost their jobs due to boards of educations and whatever, you know, goes on, you know, behind closed doors.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Senator Sampson.

[Senator Rob Sampson (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Through you, Mr. Chairman. Drew, thank you very much, for sharing that with us. I hope that you will, take the time to maybe correspond with the members of this committee, particularly the chairs, to kind of itemize some of these items. I know we have your testimony, but if you have suggestions about ways that the bill could be improved or maybe something that we should include in the, in the various sections, I'd be very interested to see what you, you have to share with us. I don't have any more questions. I will tell you it's a lot to digest. There's a lot of different perspectives about boards of education, and I don't, I'm not here to make a speech on the subject. I'm here to, you know, do more of a fact finding mission when we have witnesses that come speak before us. But I will tell you that there is, there's definitely a debate, over whether or not, you know, boards of education are acting on behalf of the residents of a community and therefore, in this particular situation, represent the employer side of the, employer employee relationship. But you're right that there's got to be some set rules on how that's applied. I think this bill attempts to get at that, although I don't know it does it very effectively. So, anyway, there's a lot to think about. And I I'm I'm gonna take another read through your testimony, and I I hope you'll stay in contact with us because I think what you have raised today is very valuable. And some of the concerns certainly are noteworthy, and they should be addressed before this bill advances. And with that, I just wanna thank you and, turn it back over to mister chairman. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, senator. Before I move on to other questions, for everyone testifying, could you and I believe you received a prompt, to be promoted to a panelist. Please accept it. It allows us to, use your mic allows you to use your microphone, and camera. So if you are, being promoted, please accept it. Senator Kushner.

[Speaker 13]: Thank you.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Thank you, mister chairman. And, Drew, I apologize because of the weather. I'm actually in the car still on my way home. But I did want to say, I didn't hear your beginning remarks. I will look forward to going back and hearing all of your testimony. But I a couple of things that struck me, I think, in your last remarks, you were pretty clear that your concern is that the most important pressing concern is that there's fair due process and that the board of education cannot be neutral and that they are the employer as well as so they're both, you know, the one that's responsible for the decision to terminate and also adjudicating it. Is that did I get that right?

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Exactly. Exactly. That's right, Senator Kushner. My argument is very clear. If a board of education is initiating a termination process on a tenured or non tenured teacher, they should not be in a position to make a final binding decision. So I agree with the argument coming from the state that, boards of educations have, way too much power, in how they're using it. But I also see, that we need to have kind of, I wouldn't say mitigate, but to hold what's another word for accountability? Just just another way to ensure that there's a a fair process.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: That seems that seems in line with what we're trying to accomplish here. There was testimony earlier, that was prompted by some of my questions because I think it's it's not it's not uncommon that folks aren't familiar with some of the terms of art that are accepted policy and practice and and guidelines for any arbitrator, and that's one of them is encompassed in the term just cause. And so I think, you know, I'd be happy to have another conversation with you. It's kinda hard to do, while I'm driving, but I would be happy if you could contact our office. It's something I'm very familiar with having practiced as a labor representative for many years, and very familiar with the new neutral arbitration process and procedures. I think we should have further conversation about it, but I, I appreciate your testimony here today. Thank you.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Oh, thank you so much. I appreciate it that you're at you're willing, like, everybody to have, you know, a conversation about this. I think we really get somewhere where we can talk about the substance. So thanks.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Thank you, mister chairman.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, senator, madam chair. Representative Gauthier.

[Representative Gauthier]: Yes. Thank you, mister chairman. Just related to senator Kushner's questions and and points and to the story that that you shared at the end of your testimony or your previous question. You know, based on the story you shared about your friend who was a teacher, who, you know, got removed, you know, as you judge unfairly from their position, I guess, help me to understand why your conclusion then is that you oppose this just cause legislation. Thank you.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yeah. I think yeah. Thanks for your question. Thanks for your question. I don't think I agree with your premise of the question you asked. Basically, the summary was, in this case, the principal determined any possible way to get rid of, this teacher. And it had nothing to do with the teacher's, performance in the classroom per se. So that goes back to my argument as to the reason why it sounds lucrative to have a neutral arbitrator get involved to kind of decide, okay, what are we gonna do about this? Because in this case, the principal represents the you know, logically, the principal represents the school district. And since she represents the school district, the school district ended up making this decision. So I think that's would be my answer to your question is is that because this employee in the school district who represented the school district acted, not appropriate, that's probably for lack of a better term, you know, that that's that does a lot of psychological damage damage to someone, you know, like that teacher who really just wanted to just do a good job for the kids. So that's how I would, you know, answer your question, square those two, those two points. Two points.

[Representative Gauthier]: Okay. And I don't know if that's any clear for me, but I'll just say that, again, it sounds like to me that this is all more the reason as to why you should and we should want to have a neutral a truly neutral arbitrator be part of this, you know, any possible termination process. So

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yeah. I would agree with a general comment. Yeah. I would you know what? I would agree with you. I would agree with you. I think that my my, example I, know, shared with you about the teacher, I think that highlights your point in the fact that we can't trust the school district in this situation to make a decision about a about a teacher. So, yes, this is, you know, a great opportunity to put forth the idea of having that neutral arbitrator. So, yes, I I would I would, agree with that.

[Representative Gauthier]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Representative Mastrofrofjesco.

[Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, Drew, for coming in. Appreciate your testimony. I did have a chance to read through it a little bit. And then in your testimony, you mentioned about the just cause being applied, excuse me, to non tenured teachers. What is the process right now?

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: I'm sorry. Could you say that again? There was a little lapse.

[Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco]: So your testimony, you mentioned, the way that it's written, just cause applies to non tenured teachers. In my opinion, non tenured teachers, they're there purposely on probation. And you had concerns. Can you elaborate elaborate a little bit more on that, the difference between the tenured and the non tenure and how just cause would affect that?

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yeah. So basically, just cause, in my opinion, just cause would affect it because it's eventually holding both equally. So if we're holding both non tenured as equal to tenured, does tenure even matter anymore? Should there be that clear distinction? And I think that's, you know, something that has to be figured out. You know, I I agree with you, senator Mansford. I I agree with you. There is a difference between tenured and non tenured. But in this in this context, it's basically treating both equal. So that I'm not again, I'm not an educational law expert, so I wouldn't necessarily know what the solution is. But I do know that we there should not be an equal treatment between the two.

[Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco]: Yeah. I yeah. I I definitely hear your concern on that. I mean, you're non tenured. You're their most it's a probation period to determine what your skills are and how you do. And, so I I certainly agree with you. That's a problem. The other concern I had with the bill was the, arbitrator, a neutral arbitrator. And I understand you're you're in agreement with the neutral arbitrator, and I know there's some concerns. So I on the other side of the coin, people would say that it's really hard to find a neutral arbitrator. Right? I I I definitely agree with that. So I think there needs to be a fair process of making those decisions without removing the board of education from that decision making because they are the local authorities of the town. I think removing them completely, putting it into the hands of a neutral arbitrator, which many would argue they're not always neutral. And maybe people would argue that your board of education is not neutral. Right? So there needs to be some I understand your concern that there needs to be some balance on there, but I think completely removing the board of education, I don't know, in my opinion, I think is is questionable.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: You know, to your point though, that I I agree with, you know, anybody can call themselves neutral. I could say that I have a million dollars sitting in the bank and no one would no one would know.

[Speaker 13]: So it's like

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: yeah. So I yeah. I I do get that. I do get that. There has to be a balance, Of course.

[Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco]: Yeah. And and just one last question through you, mister chairman. I apologize for not saying that before, but through you. You were a classroom teacher. Correct? And did you experience any examples of any school administrator abuse or anything like that?

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yeah. And in fact, I hate to I hate to use Waterbury, but there was a reason why I left the, city of Waterbury after a year and happily went to, the Wallingford Public Schools where they treated me wonderfully, and I loved it. And it was basically, you know, another example I can give you of administrator abuse principle. Principal abuse is a, poor, paraeducator in my, in my classroom was called to the principal's, principal's office, and the principal basically told her that if she didn't, I can't remember, had to do something with changing diapers, but it was it was I'm going to get rid of you and make your life miserable, saying these words directly. She came out crying crying in tears. And there's no, you know, accountability on the school administrators, you know, part for you know, first off, you would never I just I'm not probably not the one to to to judge in this matter, but I that was a real clear, thing that I still remember even to this day. Poor, poor girl comes out crying and just felt bullied that a principal told her that she was going to get rid of her for not doing something, you know. I guess she probably disagreed with the decision that she was making. And as a teacher, I I know that I, had my way of doing things and that, you know, sometimes caused some people that worked for me to be like, oh, I gotta you work with him. But I'm for the kids. I'm gonna do whatever is needed needed to be done for the kids regardless of whether they like it or not because I'm the classroom teacher. I'm in I'm in but, you know, it's it it's frustrating because I feel like I in that situation, I couldn't help the poor girl. I I just feel like I was helpless because at the time, I was non tenured. So if I were to speak up, that principal probably could have gotten rid of me. And they don't even have to currently, the law says that they don't even have to give non tenured teachers a reason to give it. So the principal might not like the fact, let's say, that I'm a male and would just use the whole, well, you're just not a good fit for the school. So it's like I feel even as a classroom teacher, a non tenure teacher at the time, I felt helpless. I couldn't help others that were being talked to so disrespectfully by school administrators.

[Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco]: Yeah. No. I I understand that. And I and I appreciate it. I through you mister chairman, I I I go back to the word neutral. Right? And even in any employment, personality always comes into play for whatever the teacher's doing. Maybe the principal or administrator doesn't agree with maybe their philosophy or what they're doing things. And and I understand that's obviously a problem across all spectrums, whatever side that you're on. Though people are normal, people are human, and that's just the way they are. So I appreciate your testimony. You gave a good insight, and some good concerns that you have with it, and certainly something that we need to look at. But, I thank you, Drew, for coming in. Appreciate your testimony today. Thank you.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Thank you to you and senator Sampson to the whole committee for doing this work. I I love conversation, and I love the exchanging of ideas. So I'm happy to support you all in any way I can. I'd love to be of help.

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Senator Kushner.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: I I thank you for the opportunity to, have one more occasion to sort of clear the record on this. And, Drew, I know you said in your comments that this wasn't your expertise in terms of the labor relations, but we did have testimony earlier today about the American Arbitrations Association. I think you put you said something in your testimony about the American Arbitration Association. And I just wanted to clarify, I don't know if you have any familiarity with that organization.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Yes. Yes. And I think my testimony, I had put that I had some questions about some of the, requirements.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Okay. So the American Arbitration Association is a I don't know how long they've been in existence, but I've been doing this kind of work for more than fifty years, and they've been around much longer than that. So it's an organization nationally accredited, nationally understood. They actually they accept you onto their board of arbitrators with certain standards they require. And I and this is a process by which they truly are neutral. In order to ensure that neutrality, there's generally a process also for that where the employer, in this case, the school, and the union have to jointly agree on someone. So if that person is biased one way or another, they pretty much never get selected. But they have certain standards they have to adhere to, to in order to be on that board of the American Arbitration Association, and it's pretty stringent requirements. In addition, what is what is clear, this isn't just the American Arbitration Association provides neutral arbitrators who don't have an interest in either side. They do provide them not just in the labor context, but in the commercial context as well. So I think if you look them up in Wikipedia or Google them, you'll find that they have a very outstanding reputation. I don't think anyone has ever disputed their qualification to be the board of arbitrators. Finally, another thing that you mentioned was, you know, like, what if they what if they came out with a bad decision because maybe they were unduly influenced? Maybe they got paid off, you know, the worst corruption we can think of. But there are processes by which if there's been malfeasance that you can challenge and overturn an arbitrator's decision in court. So these are things we can talk about. I'd love to have further conversation with you about it.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Thank you so much. I I agree. I agree. I respect your opinion on that. Although, I will say I will kinda have to disagree with the it goes back to the neutral thing. We don't know whether someone is authentically neutral. There's no there's no way to measure that. So, yeah, I would love to have more conversation, about that and talk about what does it actually mean to be neutral. Because sometimes I'm guilty of saying, oh, well, I'm neutral all the time. But, like, I have implicit and implicit bias, that I have to also recognize. You know, even as a researcher, you know, pursuing my PhD, it's something I have to deal with all the time is how do you look at something objectively, but you bring in a lot of different life experience and stuff. So it's a it's a it's a real, you know, balancing act, which I I do agree with that premise of yours. So yeah. So I think it's hard to just get to what what really is considered neutral. But, yes, let's let's further the conversation. Absolutely.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Thank you very much, mister chairman.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, senator. I don't see any other hands. Drew, thank you for your testimony and time today.

[Drew McWeeney (Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, CT State Norwalk CC)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we will go in order. I have Christina Capitan. Oops. I don't see Christina. Tanisha Sigur? Okay. We'll come back. Kim Sandor?

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Michael

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Pace. Tiffany Nordgren. Gabriela Holmes. I see Gabriela in the queue.

[Dr. Linda Sprague Martinez (Director, UConn Health Disparities Institute; Professor)]: Hello.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Hi. Proceed.

[Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco]: Hi. How are you? I'm sure you can see me. Hi. So good afternoon, everyone.

[Gabriella Holmes (UFCW Local 919; former cannabis worker)]: My name is Gabriella Holmes. I am a business agent for the United and Commercial Workers Union Local nine one nine and a former cannabis worker. I'm here to testify for SB three five two. In 2021, the General Assembly legalized recreational use of cannabis. Since then, licensed cannabis establishments have hired hundreds of employees throughout the state to cultivate and dispense recreational cannabis. And hundreds of those workers have voted for union representation by the UFCW and have negotiated their contract, myself and my coworkers being some of them. While bargaining our first time contract, the Connecticut state minimum wage moved to $15.69. My employer refused to raise the minimum wage for the workers at my organized dispensary and also at The U nonunion dispensaries. At the time, I was a union steward and a team lead at my dispensary. I was already making above the minimum wage, but when my coworkers approached me about their rates of pay, I immediately went to my supervisor and my union. My employer refused to raise my coworkers' wages, and their excuse was that the employees receive tips and even though tipping is optional. It wasn't until we filed dozens of wage theft complaints with the Department of Labor that the company agreed to back pay the workers affected. It was ten long months before my coworkers were paid correctly, and I watched as they struggled to make ends meet. Currently, state statute, and the Department of Labor only recognize the restaurant and hospitality industries as those in which employees regularly and customarily receive gratuities. As such, they are permitted to pay workers a subminimum wage with the expectation that the tips they receive will bring their hourly rates to at least the full minimum wage. If they do not, the employer is required to make up the difference. Such employers must comply with detailed regulations and maintain appropriate records to ensure they comply with the law. A single cannabis employer cannot decide to pay its employees less than the full minimum wage. That is an industry wide determination that only the Department of Labor can make after a thorough investigation and review. Thankfully, through collective bargaining, we were able to raise the minimum rates for those dispensary workers above the Connecticut state minimum wage, but we are concerned about nonunion dispensary workers. Connecticut legalized adult use cannabis on the principle that it would be an equitable industry. There is no equity without worker equity and we cannot allow cannabis employers to attempt to circumvent the law. SB three five two clarifies that cannabis employees shall be paid the full minimum wage ensuring that they will not be cheated or have to file wage theft complaints with the Department of Labor as was the case with my cannabis employer. We urge the committee to support this bill.

[Speaker 13]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, miss Holmes. Any questions of the committee? Why am I looking at my way? Is it criminal here? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

[Representative Gale Mastrofrancesco]: Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, I think I see it. Oh, woah. Okay. We get a little We we are back. I apologize the lights are going to go out, I'm told, potentially again because there's not a lot of movement. I will get back up to do it again if that happens. Back to our speaking order, I think I believe I saw Chad Cardillo.

[Chad Cardillo (Meriden teacher; MFT Secondary VP)]: Yes. Representative Sanchez. Can you hear me?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I can hear you, Chad. Thank you.

[Chad Cardillo (Meriden teacher; MFT Secondary VP)]: Great. Thank you so much for for having me. Good afternoon to you and to all the other members of the labor and, committee. My name is Chad Cardillo. I'm a social studies teacher at Maloney High School in Meriden and a secondary vice president for the Meriden Federation of Teachers. And I'm here to testify in support of, Senate Bill three forty five, specifically for the protections for breastfeeding and pumping employees. I testified last year in front of this committee for SB ten thirty, which was rolled into another, bill. My support, for this bill remains unchanged. It comes from my work helping a former Meriden teacher in her struggle to receive accommodations to provide nutrition to her child upon returning to work at the district after giving birth. She did everything she could to try to work with her administrators to make sure that they could provide reasonable accommodations for her. But she was met with roadblocks, shifting communication that stemmed from misinterpretations of the Federal Pump Act in the language in Connecticut statutes. She did end up leaving the district, unfortunately, partially due to what she had to deal with as far as being a pumping mother at work. And I know I've heard from other teachers in Meriden that have had these difficulties as well as as well as teachers around the state, some of whom resort to doing things like wearing discreet pumps at work or taking extra unpaid time off before they return to work, because of the fact that they don't know what they're gonna deal with when they when they come back as far as it relates to pumping. I sincerely hope, that because this bill or a bill like it SB twelve seventy four passed bipartisanly out of the senate last year that it will come up for a vote in the house this year and that we can see these protections put in place for our our pumping employees in the state. I also briefly wanted to speak in support of SB three fifty one, just cause for teacher dismissal. Teachers need to be provided the same protections that other public employees are provided. Another hat I wear is as a Meriden City Counselor as well. And when it comes to the arguments that are made about boards of education having having the right to have a say in dismissing teachers, I know that I as a city councilor do not have the right to dismiss an employee of the city. We have professionals in HR that deal with those things. Elected officials shouldn't be saddled with making decisions on employment, should be left to a neutral arbitrator who has heard the facts of the case and has sworn their impartiality separate from political whims that they that may pass. I thank you for your time and for the time of the other representatives and senators on this committee, and I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Chad. I don't see any hands. Thank you for your testimony.

[Chad Cardillo (Meriden teacher; MFT Secondary VP)]: Thank you very much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up, we have Ivan Chang.

[Ivan Chang (UFCW Local 919 Business Agent)]: Good afternoon. I'm here for HB5003 and SB352. My name is Ivan Chang. I'm a business agent for United Food and Commercial Workers local nine one nine. In 2021, the general assembly legalized recreational use of cannabis. Since then, licensed cannabis establishments have hired hundreds of employees through the state to cultivate and dispense recreational cannabis. And hundreds of those workers have voted for union representation by the UFCW and have negotiated their contracts while bargaining a first time contract for, for a group of newly unionized dispensary workers, the state of Connecticut minimum wage moved to $15.69. Their employee employer refused to raise minimum wage for the workers at the organized dispensary and also the nonunion dispensaries. We approached the employer. They refused to raise the wage because their employees received tips. It wasn't until we filed dozens of wage theft complaints while with the DOL. The company agreed to back pay the workers effective. It was ten months long before those workers were paid correctly. Currently, state statute, the Department of Labor only recognize restaurant and hospitality industry as those in which employees regularly and customarily receive gratuity. As such, they are permitted to pay workers a subminimum wage with the exceptions that the tips they received will bring their hourly rate to, at least the full minimum wage. If they do not, the employer is required to make up the difference. Such employers must comply with detailed regulations and maintain appropriate records to ensure they comply with the law. A single cannabis worker cannot decide to pay its employees less than the full minimum wage. That is an industry wide determination that only the Department of Labor can make after a thorough investigation and review. Thankfully, through collective bargaining, we were able to raise minimum rates for those dispensary workers above the state minimum wage. But we are concerned about the nondispensary workers. Connecticut legalized adult use cannabis on the principle that it would be an equitable industry. There is no equality without workers' equity, and we cannot allow cannabis employee to attempt to circumvly circumvent the law. S b three five two, clarifies that cannabis employee shall be paid full minimum wage, ensuring that they will not be cheated and have to file wage theft complaints to the DOL. As was the case with the single cannabis employer, We urge the committee to support this bill. Any questions?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Ivan.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I don't believe I see any hands up virtually or in the room. Thank you for your time and your testimony. Next person to speak is Quinn Christopher. Amber D'Souza? K. We'll move

[Amber De Souza (Registered Nurse, Backus Hospital)]: forward. Good afternoon.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: There we go. Good. Great. You proceed.

[Amber De Souza (Registered Nurse, Backus Hospital)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, to members of the committee. My name is Amber De Souza. I'm a resident of East Lyme, and I work as a registered nurse at Backus Hospital. I'm also a constitutional delegate of the Backus Federation of Nurses, a part of AFT Connecticut. I'm testifying in support of section one of HP 5,003, an act concerning workforce development and working conditions in the state. On 10/08/2025, while providing care for a patient, I was assaulted and kicked directly in the chest. I was diagnosed with a significant trauma to my chest, including a contusion of the left chest wall, a contusion of the sternum, and intercostal neuritis, affecting multiple areas of my ribs. Those words may sound clinical, but the reality has been months of pain, limited movement, medical appointments, and much uncertainty. Simple things such as lifting, twisting, and even sleeping comfortably have been affected. I'm still healing. In the next few short weeks, I will undergo my second procedure related to this injury. After my assault, my earned PTO was used during the initial recovery period. And for nearly five weeks of being out of work, I received only a percentage of my pay. As a mother of two managing our households, the sudden reduction in income was extremely challenging. While I was trying to focus on my healing from my physical injuries, I also had to navigate a significant financial strain. This is why I support Section one of HB 5,003. This bill would ensure that healthcare workers who are assaulted on the job receive full wage continuation and are not forced to use their sick time, vacation time, or other accumulated leave just to heal. It acknowledges that workplace violence is not a personal misfortune, but a job related to injury. And it ensures that those who are harmed are not left to shoulder the consequences on their own. For workers like me, this bill means financial stability during a traumatic time. It means we can focus on healing instead of worrying about loss of pay. It means that we are more likely to report violence without the fear of being penalized. And at a time when Connecticut faces healthcare workforce shortages, it sends a clear message that the state values and protects the people who care for its residents. If this bill passes, it will help retain experienced professionals and build a safer healthcare workplaces. If it does not pass, workers like me will continue to carry on the physical scars of workplace violence and the financial burden as well. You cannot solve workplace shortages without protecting the workers you already have. HB 5,003, section one, gives healthcare workers and all employees the dignity and security we deserve. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Amber. I have not seen any hands raised in the queue. Thank you for your testimony.

[Sarah Parker McKernan (Connecticut Legal Services)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up we have Linda Sprague Martinez.

[Dr. Linda Sprague Martinez (Director, UConn Health Disparities Institute; Professor)]: Good afternoon, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, and esteemed members of the Labor and Public Health Employees Committee. My name is Linda Sprague Martinez, and I direct the Yukon Health Disparities Institute, and and I'm a professor in the Departments of Medicine and Public Health at Yukon. And today I'm testifying in strong support of Senate Bill three fifty three, an act concerning reasonable workplace accommodations for conditions related to menopause. The Health Disparities Institute was established in 2011 as part of a legislative mandate. And our charge is to enhance research and delivery of care to minoritized and medically underserved populations. A big part of what we do is responding to community priorities and acting on concerns that we hear related to care and public health issues through our community partnerships. Last year, an issue that bubbled to the top for us was menopause. As a result, we established the Menopause Equity Collective to co lead, a menopause equity initiative. And since, it's been about a year now, we've engaged over 500 residents across the state in conversations related to menopause and their experiences. We've done this through public health and health promotion activities. And one concern that has, emerged to the top through our assessments are workplace accommodations. Nearly half of the people that we've heard from raise this concern. And it's not surprising. In The United States, approximately one point three million women enter menopause each year, underscoring the scale of this issue for workers, families, and employers alike. Symptoms are what are they vary widely, and they may include things such as sleep disturbances, cognitive challenges, and difficulty concentrating, or perhaps brain fog, as well as vascular motor issues and mood changes. For many women, these symptoms can influence productivity, attendance, and long term workplace participation. There are significant gaps in workplace protections that exist despite the prevalence of this issue and the impacts of menopause overall. While Connecticut and federal law provide explicit protections and reasonable accommodations for pregnancy and childbirth, lactation, menopause lacks comparable recognition. Yet research indicates that twenty percent of women either leave or consider leaving the workplace during menopause, thirty three percent report negative impacts of symptoms on their work, forty four percent report not feeling supported by their employers during menopause. In addition, menopause related missed workdays are estimated to cost a total of $1,800,000,000 annually nationwide. Menopause has been historically overlooked in workplace policies and practice, and research suggests that this gap is driven in part by societal stigma surrounding aging and gender, which contribute to a lack of employer awareness and limited organizational supports for women across the life course. As a result, many women continue to navigate menopause without adequate workplace accommodations, even though evidence tells us that supportive environments can improve retention, reduce absenteeism, and enhance overall well-being. Workplace accommodations for menopause are also a health equity issue. Of note, there are racial equity concern, considerations related to workplace, the workplace impacts of menopause. Women of color are overrepresented in occupations wherewith the least workplace flexibility, such as caregiving, education, and service industries. These sectors often have rigid schedules, limited autonomy, and fewer opportunities for remote or modified work. At the same time, we know that women of color are more likely to experience more severe menopausal symptoms, have less access to treatment, which compounds the challenges they face, underscoring why workplace protections, state to implement sustainable policies, supporting its workforce. Supporting its workforce. Across The United States and internationally, policymakers and employers are increasingly recognizing menopause as a workforce issue and developing guidance. We saw last year, Rhode Island enacted legislation, and we heard about that earlier in this committee. Consistent with the literature, we hear Connecticut residents calling for increasing employer awareness of menopause, ensuring flexible leave policies, and improving workplace conditions, such as access to water, restrooms, opportunities for breaks, and the ability to adjust temperature and ventilation. Supporting women has significant economic benefits for the state. These approaches align with the broader workforce development and gender equity goals, and can help Connecticut remain competitive by supporting the well-being and make up substantial contributions to Connecticut's economy and represent a significant share of the State's workforce. Labor market projections indicate the number of women 55 participating in the workforce will continue to grow over the next decade, making the retention and support, of midlife and late career women increasingly important to the State's economic competitiveness. I've also submitted, written testimony with more details and data and, but we'll take it. Look forward to take any questions and thank you for, your attention.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Linda, for your testimony. I don't see any hands online or in the committee room. Thank you for your testimony. Moving on. Shelley Davis. Eric Chester.

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Good afternoon, Senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, and other members of the committee. My name is Eric Chester, and I'm here to testify on behalf of Senate Bill three fifty one, an act establishing a just cause standard for teacher terminations. I'm an attorney. I represent unions throughout the state of Connecticut. I represent teacher unions, and I represent other public sector and private sector unions. There really exists two systems in Connecticut for public employees who want to contest an unjust termination. One system works and affords due process to those employees. The other is the system that is currently in place for tenured teachers, and that does not afford due process for tenured teachers. And I've been listening to a lot of the testimony today. I'm intimately familiar with the statute. I'm familiar with this bill, and I would I could be so bold. I I think I know more about this issue than anyone who's testified so far because I've litigated these cases. I've done a number of teacher termination cases, and I've also done a number of termination cases for employees other than teachers. And what I can tell you is that when using a just cost standard, when we're talking about the system other than teachers, where an employee looks to face an unjust termination, that system does work. I heard some of senator Kushner's remarks about the American Arbitration Association. It does afford an employee a fair shot at contesting an unjust termination. Those arbitrators are overwhelmingly neutral. They're agreed upon by the parties. The the two parties present their respective cases. The arbitrator receives evidence, considers it, writes an award that's binding on both parties. Sometimes the employee prevails. Sometimes the employer prevails. Justice is usually served in that regard. The opposite is true for tenured teachers. It there is no justice for tenured teachers and there is no due process. Unlike the system for every other employee, for tenured teachers, you can opt to go through the process in the statute. But what happens is you don't get an award that's binding on the parties. Instead, what you get from the hearing officer is a recommendation that goes back to the Board of Education. The Board of Education under the current statute is free to deviate from that recommendation. They can adopt it. They can ignore it. They can change it. In that case, the teacher has gone through the entire process with often represented by the union. I've done dozens of these. Get a favorable recommendation from the hearing officer that the teacher be returned back to work, that the termination was not justified. The recommendation goes back to the board. And then the board who hasn't heard the evidence, who hasn't seen the witnesses testify, who wasn't in the hearing can choose to ignore the recommendation and terminate the teacher anyways even though the hearing officer found that a termination wasn't warranted. That is not fair. That is not just. That is not due process. This statute seeks to fix that. All it looks to do is give tenured teachers the same shot at justice, the same shot at due process that every other public employee in the state of Connecticut enjoys. There really is no good reason not to afford tenure teachers the same rights, the same due process, the same shot at at protecting their jobs that every other public sector and unionized employee enjoys in the state of Connecticut. Like I said at the outset of my testimony, I I do think I bring anything perspective because I've done these cases a number of times. I think very few witnesses that you've heard from today have done these cases, and I've also done cases, other than teachers where the system does work. So I I welcome, questions from the committee. I welcome to be, to be engaged in dialogue as to why this, this bill should be passed, but I would urge the committee to to pass the bill to afford, tenured teachers the due process rights that every other employee, unionized employee, and public sector employee in the state of Connecticut enjoys. And I'm happy to take your questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Eric, could you walk us through some of the tests for just cause, if that makes any sense, and it the process itself as you know it?

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Sure. So for employees other than teachers, when you're contesting a termination that the employee feels is not just, the arbitrator applies what's called a just cause standard. And it's I think my colleague Adrian Deluca Deluca testified about this a little earlier today. Was the employee forewarned about the consequences of their actions? In other words, do they know what the rules are? Is the rule related to the business efficiency of of the employer's operations? Was there an investigation? Was the investigation fair and and objective? Did the investigation produce evidence that the employee was guilty of the misconduct? Were the rules applied fairly? Right? If if this person broke a rule, didn't the employee break the same rule two months ago and and nothing happened to to them? And then finally, and I I always found this to be the most important part of the just cause test, is was the degree of discipline reasonably related to the seriousness of defense given the employee's record? So for, let's say, a firefighter who's facing discipline and or a nurse and and and the discipline is termination and you have an employee with a stellar employment record and and maybe the offense isn't that egregious, in a in a arbitration, again, not teacher, in a regular arbitration, an arbitrator could what we call reform the discipline or or or or reduce it and say, listen, this this person's been a stellar employee for a long time, clean record. The offense is not that serious. I'm going to reduce it, not a termination, but I'm going to reduce it to a ten day suspension. Or I'm going to have the I'm going to instruct the parties to have the employee engage in some type of training. For teachers, they don't get that. It's termination. There is no reforming the discipline because they don't have the just cause standard. Representative Sanchez, I think you're muted. I I didn't hear what representative Sanchez said. I think he was muted at the time.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I I didn't have my mic on, so I apologize. Yeah. I I think I was starting to ask a question, and I think you were starting to say something, so I wanna let you finish.

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: No. No. I I was saying that I couldn't hear you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Yeah. I I guess my second question, and I think you brought it up, but an employee can or can't be disciplined twice for the same infraction?

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: No. Typically not.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. That thank you for that clarity. Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Eric. You you touched on the just cause standard, which, again, I appreciate. The previous witness and some of our members of our committee were concerned about this just cause standard. You described it. For one thing, I just wanna be sure is on the record that this is a standard that is that is understood and practiced by all of the arbitrators that would be part of the American Arbitration Association, and they would apply that just cause standard evenly and across the board. There was a suggestion earlier by one of the witnesses that different school districts, different circumstances, a neutral arbitrator might have a different understanding of of just cause. But I think that that might reflect that that the witness isn't aware that this is a term of art. This is not just it means more than just the words just cause. It is actually a standard that is applied across the board by all arbitrators. Is that right?

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Yes, Senator Acushner. That that is exactly right. It is a a standard that has been applied consistently since 1966 by arbitrators across the country. Any arbitrator, and you mentioned this earlier, I believe, Senator Kushner, any arbitrator that is a member of the American Arbitration Association is well versed in the just cause standard. They've they've the arbitrators are experienced practitioners often. They have to go through a rigorous vetting process to become part of the AAA, and they are undoubtedly, universally, intimately familiar with the just cost standard. And that would be applied uniformly just like it is now, except it's just not applied to teachers, not yet until this bill is passed.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. And I and and another question through you, mister chairman. Another, I think, misconception on the part of a previous witness or misunderstanding, and I hope we can clarify that with him in further conversation. But some of our committee members might be misunderstanding that, there that the American Arbitration Association, the panel, the arbitrators you mentioned just now, you know, they're well versed in just cause, but they are as neutral as anybody can be. I think we were talking about neutrality almost in the existential sense, that who knows who is ever gonna be neutral, and that people have so many biases they bring to the work. And, you know, certainly, we could debate that from a philosophical point of view. But in terms of neutrality, as it's understood that a court is neutral, that, you know, a judge is neutral, these arbitrators are similar to judges and and having to hear the testimony and issue a decision regardless of any, outside interference that might be there. They there's no opportunity for that. They can't you know, they they have to render a neutral decision. That's part of the requirement of being a member of the American Arbitration Association.

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Is that correct? Absolutely, Senator Kushner. And thank you for the the the point and the question. I like I said, I I must have done over a 100 discipline arbitrations, both teachers and non teachers. And I will say, without a doubt, that arbitrators who are part of the AAA are neutral. And it and it I will say, for whatever for what it's worth, that it's disappointing to hear testimony that for someone to say, well, who knows who's really neutral? That we we that's unfortunate that that would be in the record. Arbitrators are neutral. They do a good job. Like I said, they go through a rigorous vetting process. They have to agree they have to be agreed to by both parties. If there were an arbitrator who were known to kind of lean one way or the other, they're not going to get selected. So they do their best to be objective and and they are neutral. And and for the most part, they do a good job. It's a good system. The system we have works. I've I've won a lot of cases. I've lost a few, but I don't doubt the system, except the system that applies to tenured teachers. It's not fair. It's not just. It's not working.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: And on my final question, I I did this work for forty two years, so I went through a lot of I was never, I was never an attorney, so I didn't actually handle the arbitration, but I represented many workers in arbitrations. And one of the things that I never saw happen, but I know it was part of the law, is that if there was some sort of cert you know, there's a fairly high standard to overturn an arbitrator's decision, but you could go to court because it's it's there is an ability to go to court if you can prove that there was some, you know, really corruption involved in that arbitrator and the way they rendered their decision. Is that correct?

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: That is correct. And and that that statute exists as it applies to arbitrations now. So for for the the custodian, the school nurse, the firefighter, the the RN, that statute is on the books. If either party felt that there were some malfeasance on the part of the arbitrator, they could seek to vacate the arbitration warrant. That ability to seek to vacate an arbitration warrant in court exists in this act. So there is still the ability to appeal an arbitration award in court if one party suspected some type of, arbitral malfeasance. The other thing I I would you mentioned a misconception, Senator Kushner, is one thing I wanted to mention because I've heard it mentioned a number of times throughout other witnesses' testimony. That is that the Board of Education is being removed from the process. That's a misconception. The Board of Education is not part of the process. They're just not. Again, I've done about a dozen of these cases over the years. Here's how the process works and and here's what the Board of Education's role is in that process. It's initiated by the superintendent, not the Board of Education. The superintendent makes a recommendation to terminate a tenured teacher's employment. The teacher then requests a hearing. The hearing is always before the hearing officer. It's never before the Board of Education. So all the evidence is received by the hearing officer. All the argument is made before the hearing officer. The Board of Education has never been a part of the process. It is in the statute currently, but it's practically it never happens. The only time the Board of Education is part of the process is after you've gone through the hearing, after you've gone through all the presentation of the evidence, and the hearing officer then makes their findings and makes their recommendation. Those two things get sent back to the board. That's where the process falls apart because there, the Board of Education can say, okay. We see the hearing officer received all the evidence. We see the hearing officer made a recommendation. We're going in a different direction. That doesn't make any sense. So the Board of Education is not being taken out of the hearing process. They've never been a part of it. This statute does remove them from the process because it makes that decision, not a recommendation, but a decision, just like it is everywhere else except for teachers.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you. That was very helpful in clarifying some of the things we've heard here today. I appreciate your testimony.

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, Eric, thank you for your testimony.

[Attorney Eric Chester (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Thank you for having me.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next we have, James Demetriadas.

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is James Demetriatus, and I work alongside attorney Chester at Ferguson, Doyle and Chester, and we're counsel to AFT Connecticut and their affiliated locals. I'm here today to speak on house bill raise bill 5,003 and specifically with regards to the assault statutes, the health care assault statute and then the education assault statute. I'm gonna focus the majority of my testimony on the education or on health care assault statute, but I'll also touch upon the ancillary education assault statute. Health care workers are facing an epidemic of workplace violence across the country. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, health care workers experience the highest counts of incidences of workplace violence of any private sector industry as recorded in a two year period of the most recent data from 2021 to 2022. The workplace violence that they are witnessing has risen by sixty nine percent and require days away from work, job transfers and permanent restrictions. Connecticut has long acknowledged workplace violent preventions against public service. And in healthcare alone, we have numerous other acts that prevent and try to advocate for healthcare workers to ensure that they're safe, including CGS 19 A490R, which requires annual reporting on workplace violence incidences. Four ninety S requiring assaults to be reported to law enforcement. 53 A 167C enhanced criminal penalties for those who are assaulted. But what there is not is enhanced benefits and protections for health care workers who are assaulted in the line of duty itself. An ancillary statute does exist and has existed in Connecticut since the 1970s for educators, ten-two 36 A. And what ten-two 36 A does is it indemnifies a public school employee if they're assaulted by a student, and it indemnifies them over and above what workers' comp provides. And so workers' comp provides around 75% of a person's average weekly wage. And what ten-two 36 A does is provide the difference between the, workers' comp rate and the employee's regular full rate. Now there's been, some litigation around 10/1936 a specifically with regards to the issue of intent of the party that is doing the assaulting and what level of intent is required, for it to be an assault. So in both statute proposals that are being in front of this committee, the language is being updated in ten-two 36 a or is being proposed to be updated to say that it's any assault that occurs. And it's particularly important for health care workers because they're often dealing with patients that are escalated, that are in mental health or physical health crisis and they physically lash out upon the healthcare workers that are help trying to help them. And healthcare workers do not get hazard pay. They are there to help the patients and they're there for the health and safety of their patients. And so we have already recognized through public policy that we need to support our healthcare workers and make sure that they're not being assaulted. And so by expanding or paralleling our two dash, our 10 dash two thirty six a statute to healthcare workers, we are gonna make sure that healthcare workers know that the state has their back and that if they are to be assaulted by a patient in distress, that they will be protected. Not only does the language propose a healthcare worker in distress from a patient, it's in the discharge of his or her duties. So that could include a visitor, a family member that gets violent or aggressive as well. The idea being we know that our health care workers are there every single day. During COVID, they were heroes in our community and cheered for being heroes in the community, and they are crying out for help. Our office has represented numerous health care workers that have been assaulted by patients, and the remedy at law of workers' comp doesn't accurately and fully, make them whole, for the injury that occurs to them. And oftentimes, they're left with debilitating lifelong, disabilities. So I'm happy to answer any questions that folks have about, 10 dash two thirty six a as it exists currently, the proposed changes to 10 dash 30 two thirty six a to expand, and to make sure it includes all assaults because there is currently a split in the superior courts about what level of intent is required. And then specifically with the health care workers, talk about why this is so important for our health care workers.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, James. Any

[Timothy Condon (President, Montville Professional Firefighters)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Questions from the committee? Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Can you hear me okay?

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Yes, sir. Yes. Senator.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Great. I just wanted to make clear this is also intended to cover school employees, and I know you're you're probably also representing paraeducators from time to time who might have the same kind of issue where they are harmed at work, assaulted at work by a student, and the same issue comes up where they might have to prove intent.

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Correct. So the superior courts are split on the issue of what an assault is. This is a civil statute. There's about six or seven cases out there. Some of them say it requires specific intent, to harm, and some of them says they don't. And so without appellate court history or guidance from the legislature, it continues to be an unresolved issue. And I think the public policy is that these employees, whether they be paraprofessionals or teachers or health care workers, are there for a public good and a public service, and they don't get hazard pay. They don't get, enhanced pay for being in hazardous situations, but they are there to serve their population and that they always serve their population. And when they get assaulted and they have permanent injuries, I think the public policy, and it's been pretty consistent since the original statute, is to make sure that they're wholly indemnified and protected because they have really important work to do.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you for that answer. And, I we heard testimony earlier today from an attorney who talked about the origins of the statute and that we're not really expanding coverage for these workers that's already in statute. We're clarifying in order for the courts to render a good decision. I asked back several witnesses ago if there if you had an idea of when the shift came. Because I think we set the public policy. It appears that the employer, in this case, whether it's a hospital or whether it's a school, decided to go for a different interpretation by denying that, by requiring that decision regarding intent or the ability to prove intent.

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Yeah. The cases started appearing in the nineteen nineties and and are litigated once every couple of years or every handful of years. And I think the issue is a lot of people don't pursue their rights under the statute because it's it's not covered under workers' comp. You're gonna have to hire a private attorney and and file a claim against the board of education, and we're talking about the difference between your workers' comp rate and your full salary. And, you know, that may not be a lot of money that will cover your legal expenses to get that remedy. And and so, you know, I just had a conversation with the corp counsel the other day where they said, you know, we think this is on the line. It could be an assault. It could be the kid not knowing what they were doing. We're gonna deny it and she can file in superior court to go and pursue it. Well, that's great. The court costs, the deposition fees, all the things that then come associated with it because there's not clarity in the statute, it may not be worth it for that PERA to pursue it. And that's unfortunate because I think there's such a clear legislative policy here and and priority here that we have the opportunity to make it right and to go back to what we originally, I think, intended the statute to be used for. And same thing with our healthcare workers if we're able to successfully expand it. We have all these other statutes that are meant to protect our healthcare workers, but where it counts with the salary replacement, it's lacking. You know, our health care workers don't wanna be pressing charges against their patients. They don't wanna be you know, having their patients be arrested doesn't isn't what they're there for, but that is the lever that they have to pull right now, and that's not making the health care workers whole, And it it's it's causing a breakdown of trust between the employers and the and the employees.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. That was really helpful in reminding us that we're talking about the difference between what 70% that the workers' compensation might pay and a 100% for a paraeducator, who might make $18 an hour. We're talking about a very small amount of money for the school district to be saying, no. We're not gonna pay this. You can go into court to recover that. It'd be probably hard to find an attorney who would work for that Loma, except for the union attorneys who do it because they have to, because they love to. But thank you for that clarification. That was a good reminder. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, madam chair. Representative Shake.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning on HB 5003 worker assaults)]: Hi. Can you hear me?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. We can.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning on HB 5003 worker assaults)]: Thank you. James, thank you so much for giving such a detailed description and helping us to understand, the difference between what's already in statute and being able to clarify we're not going if this is able to pass, we're not creating something new, in the expansion because it already exists. My question, though, in your clients that you have represented specifically in health care, those workers that have been assaulted at work and they were receiving workers' comp

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning on HB 5003 worker assaults)]: Were those workers do you have any examples of them struggling to pay for their basic cost of living? Is this something, if we're able to pass this, that would help workers, you know, essentially sustain and be able to take care of themselves?

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Yeah. You know, the big issue in health care is a lot of health care workers have low contracted hours and are working overtime or, additional differentials in order to try to make up the difference between their base salary and their higher their their normal earning salary. And workers' comp's based off of an average of fifty two weeks prior to the date of injury. And so for a lot of folks, that 75% is a real difficult bridge to gap because a lot of them are are are working paycheck to paycheck, especially my younger nurses or my newer nurses that maybe nursing is a second career for them, or my nurses or other health care workers that, aren't as highly paid. It is really difficult to live on 75% of what you normally would be making, and especially when you're out of work because of an assault. Oftentimes, they have to go back light duty. Oftentimes, when you go back light duty, it is even your workers' comp benefits are reduced even further. So you're far below your normal contracted rates. And remember the way we've written this or the statute is written here, the statute is written to provide protection to all of the different health care providers that are in the network, not just nurses. So you have techs out there, that aren't making a lot of money, but are doing direct patient care frequently, have other hospital staff that are are frequently interacting with patients and they don't make a lot of money either. And so they're already living paycheck to paycheck. 75% just knocks them down even further. And then the recovery, you know, if you've been hit, I have a I have a client that was hit in the head, struck in the head and and developed a concussion. Well, they're not gonna be able to return to work for at least a year. And so you have a continued issue and then they can go back light duty, but they're only making an hour or two of salary. And then workers' comp will pay a little bit of the difference, but it's a lower percentage of the difference. So something like this would help bridge that gap and help make the pathway to recovery more viable for them.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning on HB 5003 worker assaults)]: Thank you. And would you agree that if Connecticut is able to pass legislation like this, that we're really able to address the affordability crisis here in Connecticut that we've heard on both sides of the aisle. But in terms of working people and their lived experiences and everyday realities and struggles. This is a way of protecting the integrity, right, and their quality of life. I can't imagine if it you know, god forbid I was assaulted on the job. And if that person has the wherewithal to be able to navigate the process of filing all different kinds of paperwork, let alone having to figure out how to struggle, how they're going to pay their monthly bills.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: I I agree with that a 100%. And and I think one of the things that is important to note when it comes to affordability is these are areas of of shortage as it is. Right? Health care we have a health care shortage of of qualified health care employees. We have a a shortage of paraprofessionals. And and the reason we have shortages in both of these fields, right, is because the fields are underpaid. And they often do, the most direct, you know, public service to the public. Unlike, some of my other public sector employees like firefighters or police officers who normally have a 100% salary when they're injured for a period of time, healthcare workers or paras, they don't have the same kind of language often. And especially because not all of our healthcare workers are unionized, they aren't able to negotiate this kind of benefit. So I think affordability, knowing that the employer has their back because they are there for patient care, they have to intervene, they have to make sure the patient stays safe, they have to make sure that the patient gets what they need, knowing that there is a statute that will ensure that they get their full pay. Absolutely. Affordability, ability job security and longevity or that it feeds into all of those issues.

[Unidentified Representative (questioning on HB 5003 worker assaults)]: Thank you.

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, James. I don't see any other hands. Greatly appreciate your testimony.

[Attorney James Demetriades (Ferguson, Doyle & Chester)]: Thank you all. Have a great rest of the night. Stay safe if you are driving home this evening.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. You as well.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Mister chair, can I just ask you're very hard to hear, and if you could just get that close to your it's it's my case?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Better, senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Much better. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you for that catch. Up next, we have Rachel Scotch.

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: Good afternoon, chairs and distinguished members of this committee. I am testifying today in support of SB three forty seven, increasing the threshold account amount for felony unemployment compensation fraud. My name is Rachel Scotch, and I'm an attorney with the New Haven Legal Assistance Association. As the employment law attorney at LAI, my representation includes matters involving unemployment compensation benefits and other, Department of Labor programs. And I support SB three forty seven, increasing the threshold dollar amount that's used to determine whether instance of unemployment compensation fraud are considered a misdemeanor or a felony from $500 to 2,000. As you're aware and as has been testified to today, individuals who receive unemployment compensation overpayments don't always knowingly make false statements to the Department of Labor, nor do they intend to get something they shouldn't have, but their actions unintentionally result in an overpayment. Connecticut law makes clear that a person who takes another property under a mistaken belief that such taking is not wrongful does not possess the intent required for a conviction of larceny. And this interpretation of our larceny statute should also apply to a mistaken belief about unemployment compensation payments due. However, once a person has been charged with a felony, the effects are lasting even if the charge is eventually dismissed or they're acquitted. A $500 overpayment does not represent even one week of full time employment at the minimum wage, but a felony charge for what may be a mistake or a miscommunication has lasting negative consequences for the individual charged to their family and, really, for all of us. Aside from facing the possibility of deeper criminal penalties, including increased jail time, folks with felony charges and convictions hate housing and employment discrimination. The employment discrimination can result in poor quality job choices, hate job instability, lower wages, vulnerability to unscrupulous and illegal wages and workplace standards. And this is true regardless of whether or not a person is incarcerated for those felonies. Findings in a 2020 study by the Brennan Center for Justice suggest that felony convictions even without imprisonment can result in a 22% reduction in annual income. And according to data compiled by the National Employment Law program in a February 2026 fact sheet on centering job quality for workers with records, Poor job quality and lost earnings among workers with records drain family and community resources. They limit children's future opportunities, weaken local economies, and widen racial wealth gaps, perpetuating cycles of poverty and disinvestment in overcommunities. NELP, notes that, conversely, access to good jobs characterized by fair pay, stability, and safety positions workers, entire communities, and the larger workforce for long term second step. So there are some huge burdens that we are imposing on people unnecessarily, on them, their families, our communities, and our state's economy and resources for a $500 mistake, especially in unemployment compensation and repayment cases where there is already a mechanism available for holding individuals liable for overpayments with the accompanying penalties. It seems we don't really need to resort to a felony charge. And furthermore, the Connecticut legislature has already determined that $2,000 not 500 is the threshold for a felony charge for even an intentional act that results in a benefits overpayment. If you look at, Connecticut general statutes 53 a one nineteen six a, it states that a person is guilty of defrauding a public community who certifies, attests, or files a claim for benefits or reimbursement from a local state or federal agency, which he knows is false or knowingly accepts the benefits from a claim he knows is false. The threshold for this type of larceny charge under that statute, which contemplates the exact type of fraud that is the subject of SB three forty seven, that's $2,000, not 500.

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: Miss Scott, your time is almost up. Please conclude your remarks.

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: Certainly. In closing, s b three forty seven is a common sense effort to make our statutes consistent to state save state resources and to allow individuals to remain employed or gain stable employment and to successfully support their families free from the significant burden of being labeled as a felon. So thank you for your time and your consideration, and I will gladly take any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions? Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I was having such trouble deciding whether my hand was up or down. And I apologize. I did not hear some of your testimony because I was dealing with a problem with another public hearing that's going on that I had to pay attention to for a moment. But I know in earlier testimony with one of your colleagues, we had some, back and forth about, to what extent there is discretion on the part of the Department of Labor to say, okay. This was clearly a mistake on your part, so, therefore, we're not going to charge you with a felony, but instead, we're just gonna seek restitution, and you would be cleared if you pay back. Or could they, for instance, say, we know this was a mistake even though it was fraudulent. We're not gonna charge you with a felony. We're going to reduce it to a misdemeanor. Is there that kind of discretion as it currently exists?

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: Well, I I believe that the discretion exists prior to, you know, reporting it as a crime because the the department would have the discretion to report it as a crime or not report it as a crime and still impose the penalties. But if once it's reported as a crime, then things are generally out of the hands of the person reporting the crime and then in the hands of the prosecuting officer. So I don't think that they can then take back what they've reported, if that's what you're asking.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Well, I think maybe we're not clear enough about the process itself with an with the Department of Labor and when they pursue something like this. So maybe that's part of where we have had a hard time understanding what the role of the Department of Labor is. I don't know if you can add shed any light on that.

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: I I don't know that I can, but I also would ask the committee to focus more on the the dollar amount that this is the subject of this bill because it's inconsistent with laws that we already have in place, which do put the threshold at $2,000. If you think about it, somebody can walk into Target and steal $1,500 in in merchandise just because they want things. And we are going to treat them better than somebody who mistakenly or even intentionally got an additional $500 in unemployment compensation because they needed to put food on their table while they were waiting for their new job to paycheck. So I I feel like there's while it's important to know what the process is for the Department of Labor, the issue here is that the threshold is entirely too low. It's been in place for almost I think it's fifty years at that level, And all of our other statutes that contemplate this kind of behavior, even one that contemplate the exact same behavior that I noted in my testimony, which I did provide in writing, we have already acknowledged that $2,000 should be the level that we're looking at. That's really much more in keeping with where we are economically at this point in time.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I do appreciate that that is the key issue here, and I think we have approached it that way for a number of years. I was just curious because of the back and forth we had with the previous witness. Thank you so much for your

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: Yeah. I wish I wish I could help you with that. I'm sorry.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That's okay.

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: Thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, mister chair. Further

[Representative Gauthier]: thank you, madam

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: chair. Any further questions? I don't see any hands up. Rachel, thank you for your testimony.

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have Kate Diaz.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think earlier today, we were told that she wouldn't be available.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. I will mark her off my list so I won't go back to her. Followed by Dennis Martinez.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Can you check with, with our clerk, Cameron Clark? I think that was one of the name was that one of the names, Cameron, that was recorded

[Heather Brough (Registered Nurse, Backus Hospital)]: incorrectly?

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: Would you mind repeating the name also on number 38, Tonisha Signore, has joined?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Great. The name was Dennis Martinez, Cameron.

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: Dennis Martinez.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I think that was one of those that was there was a mistake per when they were signed up by their union representative. I think Michael Adams brought that to our

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: attention. Understood. That I believe that is correct.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So do we have the correct name?

[Rachel Scotch (New Haven Legal Assistance Association)]: The

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Well,

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: the It's okay. Person is actually in a later position on the list.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Great. I

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: believe we figured that one out.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Alright. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Tanisha Sigmundore.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: Hello. Good evening. Thank you for circling back to me. My name is Tanisha Signore. I'm the policy director at She Leads Justice. We're a statewide nonprofit that uses the justice and equity lens to advocate for under resourced and marginalized women in the state. We've been around for over fifty years and have been leading advocates for policy solutions to enhance women's economic security, combat discrimination, and increase gender equity. I am testifying today in support of s b three four five, s b three five three, s b three five five, and h b five three eight seven. I'm gonna try to address each bill, and I'll just be as brief as I can. We are supportive of the entirety of SB three four five, but I've I'll specifically be sending in testimony for employers providing adequate break time for breastfeeding individuals in the workplace. There are many benefits associated with breastfeeding. Leading agencies recommend that they that babies continue to be breastfed exclusively for up to six months, and then supplement and then with supplemental food past a year of the of the first year of the baby's life. It's associated with better health outcomes for the infants, and as they grow into children as well as, for the person who's breastfeeding. I have a personal connection to this because I had a very supportive

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: employer who

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: made many accommodations for me in the first year of my child's life. But because of their understanding, I was able to breastfeed successfully past past her first birthday, and that was really a blessing to me. So I think it's also important when we're talking about race disparities and the ability to do things like this. Specifically, there are significant disparities for black women who are breastfeeding individuals, compared to their white counterparts, and the the duration of their ability to breastfeed, in the workplace. This has to do with a lot of things, including the nature of the work that that they do and the fact that, certain jobs give you very little autonomy, and input in your schedule and ability to take time off. So we're we're in favor of that. We're also in favor of SB five three five, which is an amazing menopause justice bill. I think we are just starting to begin to have the conversations that we need to have about menopause. It's very new. I think when I was researching information for this bill, the first national study for the effectiveness of of hormone therapy was finished in, like, 2005. So we definitely need to, keep making policies like this and and get them through and make sure that the workplace is an equitable place for women and specifically women who are experiencing things like pregnancy and and and menopause. They're in the prime of their lives, and they have a lot to contribute to the workforce. I also am submitting on SB three fifty five for and not concerning limitations of nondisclosure agreements. I think this is a really common sense policy, and it's it's an amazing way to create spaces in our workplaces that are, victim centered and trauma informed. Contracts should not be used to silence victims and survivors of these, acts that can be really horrendous. And I think that, we need to work towards creating work environments where women and workers feel safe, heard, and protected all the time. And then in regard to HP 5,387, our organization has been a leading advocate for policies aimed at closing the gender wage gap over the years. We applaud the Committee and the legislature for taking big steps, over over the years to to close the gender wage gap. It is persisting, and, actually, national model models are trending that numbers are widening for the first time in a long time. So I think we need to do everything we can as a State to address these disparities. And, we're we wouldn't be alone in this. California, Colorado, New York, Washington, Illinois, and soon, Delaware all require salary range ranges or pay scales on job postings. Some even include benefits in those policies. So I would we would strongly urge the committee to vote favor favorably on this bill as well. Did I not reach three minutes yet? I feel like that was so much. Or is he just being are you guys being forgiving today?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: You didn't get to the three minutes.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: My goodness. Okay.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: We gotcha. But there are some questions. Representative Fuse.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Thank you. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, Tanisha. In the states that passed this wage range or including benefits, what is the economic response been or the the worker response? Do you have any information about that?

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: I don't have any specific information about that. I would be happy to look into it and get it back to you. I do know that, you know, in general, I can I I would be comfortable saying that when the salary ranges are are transparent, specifically for women, it can lead to great advantages because, we are less likely to attempt to negotiate with with salaries that are initially offered than than men are? But as for your question specifically, I would have to get back to you.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: That's okay. And through you, mister chair, I just was thinking that, you know, when when women do better economically, can you speak to the local economy and how that fares?

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: Yeah. You know, women are women are pillars pillars of our economic of our economic, society. And when our motto at our organization is when we center women, communities win. So, you know, when when we center policies that center women, that center families, that center workers, we're uplifting an entire economies, entire communities, and this this is an example of that. A lot of these, bills that you have before you are actually examples of that today.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: So

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for saying that. And and also, you know, goes directly into their families and, so many I I know you do have statistics about how many women are actual breadwinners for their families, and that is why this is so important. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. I don't see any other hands. Tanisha, good to see you.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: You too.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Have a good night. Thank you for your testimony.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Next up we have John Moss.

[Jonathan Moss (Fifth Grade Teacher, Avon)]: Good afternoon. Distinguished members of the labor and public employees committee. My name is Jonathan Moss and I testify today in support of SB three fifty one and HB 5,005. These bills ensure that educators are treated fairly when facing employment decisions that should be based on facts and not politics. These protections are essential to recruiting and retaining experienced and dedicated educators our students rely on in our classrooms. Unlike doing sufficient cause, which has no precise definition, just cause has a specific meaning. For example, four of the criteria involve requiring well understood policies that are consistently applied to employees through thorough investigations and reasonable consequences. None of these are outlandish in what time management's hands when responding to valid disciplinary measures, matters that need a serious response. Just cause doesn't get anyone off the hook automatically, nor does it overprotect people who have committed serious infractions. Rather than defending the indefensible, just cause simply ensures that the employee is treated fairly and equitably. I'm a fifth grade teacher in Avon, and our association quickly reached an agreement with our board to include a clear just cause standard for disciplinary action. This benefits everyone, not just the employee. This legislation would give superintendents and boards an important statutory support in resisting community pressure to take hasty action in a situation which emotions are running high. My superintendent and I have never had a conflict over just cause, and we both support this important change. We have a shared belief in the importance of treating employees fairly, and we know that when teachers are supported, they are best able to support their students. I also ask you to support the language that comes from binding neutral third party decisions in termination cases of teachers. In a time in which is increasing political pressure being placed on teachers and schools. Shouldn't we make termination immune from such influences and motivations by keeping the final step of the process impartial? A court of law would never allow one person to be both the prosecution and the judge or jury, yet that is entirely what the current legislation allows. If the reason for termination meets the fair, reasonable standards of just cause and can stand the scrutiny of an impartial, objective third party hearing, what is the concern? And if the case is weak enough that it can't stand the scrutiny of the tests of just cause. If impartial, objective third party arbitrators feel the termination is unwarranted, why are we allowing that termination to proceed? We are proudly a binding arbitration state that values due process. And all that I ask is that we apply the very same standards to our hardworking educators. It is also critically important that our teachers are protected, when they're assaulted by students. I can think of no other job in which the intent of the person causing the injury, is the determining factor, in determining whether the person receives full payment during their recovery. If a police officer is injured by a person, does their pay depend on whether the individual acted out of malice or dysregulation? Or if a firefighter is hurt in the fire, does the cause of the fire, arson or accidental, influence how they're paid? The fact that you were injured at work, and now find yourself unable to work, and you deserve full pay as a result. By knowingly allowing districts to create barriers that disincentivize teachers from speaking up, this creates another instance in which society has chosen to devalue and disrespect educators. But this session, as you consider fair termination and workers' compensation matters for teachers, you and your colleagues have an opportunity to right this wrong. Thank you for your time, and I, am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, Jonathan, thank you for your testimony.

[Jonathan Moss (Fifth Grade Teacher, Avon)]: Thank you very much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have Kristen Basiago. Hopefully, I pronounced that correctly.

[Speaker 13]: Good afternoon, representative Sanchez. Thank you for waiting it out there in the capital. Good afternoon, senator Kushner, representative Weir, and distinguished members of the committees. My name is Kristen Bosega, and I'm speaking as president of the Glastonbury Educational Association. And today, I'm testifying in support of SB three fifty one on HB five zero zero three. As you know, the current system of termination for public school employees in the industry. After one of the longest probationary periods of any employee, four years to become tenured under state law, there are six weeks to terminate a tenured teacher in Connecticut. There's insubordination, incompetence, disability that prevents you from teaching. But the last reason is the one that we're most concerned with, that any due insufficient clause. Do insufficient cause is a lower legal bar than the just cause that's helped in these details. Do insufficient cause is ambiguous, and it creates a culture of fear amongst teachers because just about anything can be do insufficient cause. So can I wear a shirt that says all students welcome here, or will parents' complaints turns into me losing my life in class? Can I put a second amendment bumper sticker on my car, or is that due insufficient cause? In the term system, teachers can't appeal their terminations from an impartial panel. However, the determination of that panel isn't binding. It's a suggestion to the board of education. So I asked you, in what other circumstances can an impartial panel see all the facts of the case, hear about mitigating circumstances, move in favor of the employee, but have them still lose their livelihood anyways? I know teachers that may have won an appeal. However, they resigned anyways because they felt that the board was going to fire them whether the case cited for the teacher or not. There are teachers who would still be in the classroom today if laws treated teachers in the same way they taught or treated other public employees. So the 2,000 front of me aren't giving teachers special treatment. I mean, we're not asking for teachers to be shielded from the consequences. We're asking for the same legal rights and termination as our peers in public education. So our paras, our nurses, school administrators for whom just cause requires the legal test as explained in previous testimony by John Moss, attorneys DeLuca, and attorney Chester. We're asking for the neutral arbitrators who can make meaningful decisions about teacher termination like we have in so many other areas of labor law in Connecticut. And we're asking for this just cause standard, which many boards of education already use for discipline up to the level of termination. As such, it's a higher legal bar to put a disciplinary letter in a teacher's file than it is to simply terminate. Please support senate bill three fifty one and house bill five zero zero three. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. Any questions could please representative Weir.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Kristen, thank you for your testimony. I don't have any questions. I know we've we've discussed this topic over the past couple of, years. I certainly know your position. I look forward to continuing, the discussion, but I wanna say it's good to see you. Thank you for that, very clear testimony.

[Speaker 13]: Thank you, representative.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Any questions or comments from anyone else on the committee? Seeing none, Kristen, thank you for your testimony. Up next, we have Brett Pickering. Megan Hatch Geary.

[Rebecca Martinez]: Good evening. Can you hear me okay?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. We can.

[Megan Hatch Geary (2020 CT Teacher of the Year; High School English Teacher)]: Senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, and distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee, thank you so much for having me here tonight. My name is Megan Hatch Geary. I'm the 2020 Connecticut teacher of the year and a high school English teacher who has been in the classroom for seventeen years. I testified today in support of Senate Bill three fifty one and House Bill 5,003, which strengthened Connecticut's ability to recruit and retain educators if they are treated with fairness. These bills ensure that educators will be treated with fairness when they are facing employment decisions that should be based on facts rather than politics. These protections are essential to keeping experienced, dedicated teachers in our classrooms. It is no secret that we are living through a highly volatile and polarized period in our American history where politics bleeds into every aspect of our daily lives. As an educator, for me, this feels like a call to action, a time when education matters more than it ever has. As a teacher, it is vital that I and my colleagues are able to teach students to parse nuance, to understand complex arguments, to evaluate sources, to make connections and to think critically. And yet the ability to do this is hampered by a culture of fear. Teachers sometimes fear retribution or retaliation when they design responsible grade appropriate lessons that seek to help students tie curricula to current events or to make connections across historical periods. They are nervous when they work to responsibly make learning relevant to today's students in a way that engages them and inspires them and helps them see themselves and their society in the learning. I make this distinction about responsible practice because it is vital to understand that this bill does not seek to protect irresponsible or ineffective teachers. It seeks to protect educators who are doing the difficult work of making learning relevant to today's learners, but who fear being punished by people who would rather keep that relevance silent. This culture of fear, this ever present anxiety not only hinders the learning process, but it does a massive disservice to all of our students. It exacerbates disengagement. Even teaching empathy and creating inclusive learning environments has been politicized in such a way as to make teachers fear hanging up posters that welcome all students or sharing storybooks that see all children regardless of their race, culture, family structure or identity. Furthermore, when teachers fear engaging in politics outside of the classroom for fear that it will be used against them, This further erodes our civil liberties. It weakens our societal structures without proper and legal fair legal protections. Teachers are more reticent to use their constitutional rights. Living in a culture of fear suppresses democracy. It is as simple as that. Unless you are a lawmaker who benefits from a reluctant, uninformed and or a miseducated populace, you should support legislation to protect educators who are doing the difficult work of democracy alongside you. I urge you to pass legislation that places binding decisions in the hands of a trained and certified neutral hearing officer to guarantee that terminations are grounded in facts, not politics or personal bias. The law should protect teachers like me from falling victim to political attacks, personal opinions, or a rush to judgment so that we can focus on our most important priority, which is educating the future of our country. Thank you very much for your time today, for your leadership on these issues and for supporting policies that keep great educators in our classrooms.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Meghan. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, up next, we have Ed Thibodeaux.

[Ed Thibodeau (CEA UniServ Representative)]: Good afternoon, distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Ed Thibodeau, and I'm a Uniserve rep with Connecticut Education Association. I'm here to speak in support of senate bill three fifty one and house bill five zero zero three. I had prepared remarks ready to go, but after listening to so many of the witnesses who testified before me, they've covered that ground already, and I don't wanna simply reiterate what's already been said. So I think what I'm gonna do is just highlight a few points that I think maybe deserve a little bit more attention. One thing that was brought up by a prior witness, this witness raised a lot of questions. Many of those questions were addressed by Adrian DeLuca, by Eric Chester, and by senator Kushner. However, one that wasn't, he he stated that giving a non or or I'm sorry. Giving a just cause standard to non tenured teachers would make them the same as tenured teachers, and that's not correct. Non tenured teachers, by statute, work on a year to year contract. And at the end of any given year, the district can simply notify that teacher prior to May 1 that we will not continue your contract next year. They don't have to give a reason. They don't have to have just cause. They can simply not renew the contract. That happens up until four years. It's only after being offered a position for the fifth year that a teacher attains tenure. So there's a big difference there that needs to be recognized. Moving on to what happens in real life under the current statute. I would just like to tell you, I've been working with teachers now in Connecticut for over ten years, and I have worked with dozens and dozens of teachers who have been in the unfortunate circumstance of facing a termination. And out of all of those people, only one chose to go through this hearing process. One single teacher out of all of those people. And that one teacher, ironically, did the hearing and the board of ed rejected the findings of the hearing officer. So just what we've been talking about earlier today could happen, did happen for this one teacher. But I wanted to just focus on the rest of those people. Every single one of them resigned rather than go through this hearing process once I explain what the process actually entailed. And that should tell you everything you need to know. This process is so bad that no one will use it. It it can't be the best way to do things if everybody wants to avoid it. And so that's why asking to have every teacher treated the same as every other board of ed employee is not only reasonable, but it's better for the system. It's better for the district. It's better for the teachers. It reduces turnover. It helps you keep teachers who would otherwise be let go. When teachers are faced with allegations, the first thing that happens is I get a call from the board's attorney trying to trying to convince me to convince the teacher to simply resign. They know they're not gonna go through a hearing. They're gonna put pressure on that teacher to resign. However, sometimes the allegations aren't that serious that really should warrant a termination. But the board will automatically

[Unidentified Representative (questioning Frank Ricci)]: go to

[Ed Thibodeau (CEA UniServ Representative)]: that step. They never look at doing, say, suspension without pay for a week or something lesser. Because if they do, they know that the just cost standard will apply, and they will have to do an arbitration hearing, pay their attorney, and all of those things. It's easier just to fire the teacher. And that's a big, big flaw in this system. Firing a person should be the most difficult thing, not the easier thing. The the right to appeal really is no better than the hearing process itself. The right to appeal only allows you to challenge an error in the process. You can't substitute the court's opinion for that of the board of education. Also, by the time anyone gets to the point where they have the chance to appeal, they've already been fired. They've already been out of work for a long time. They're demoralized. They're broke. They have no stomach left to fight a court fight. Mister Tillerson, that is not

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: a Your time is almost up. Please send me your remarks.

[Ed Thibodeau (CEA UniServ Representative)]: That is not an acceptable alternative to having a fair hearing with a just cause standard and having a neutral arbitrator. So I thank you for listening to me, and I'll take any questions you might have.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Ed. Any questions from the committee? I don't see any hands. Thank you for your testimony.

[Ed Thibodeau (CEA UniServ Representative)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have senator May Flexer and representative Matt Blumenthal.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Good afternoon, representative Sanchez, senator Kushner. Can you hear me okay?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: We can. Good

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: afternoon. Thank you very much, for the opportunity to testify, and thank you for continuing to run this hearing under some unorthodox circumstances, such as the ones I physically find myself in right now. Myself and representative Blumenthal are here today, to testify on senate bill three fifty five, an act concerning limitations on the use of nondisclosure agreements. I wanna thank, you, representative Sanchez and senator Kushner and the whole of the labor committee for your leadership on this issue in the past and and for putting forward this bill today. To be brief, because I know you've had a long and challenging day, the use of nondisclosure agreements not only affects individual victims who deal with harassment or discrimination in the workplace, it also affects their fellow colleagues and employees. Connecticut being a national leader and following the example of a handful of other states and limiting the use of these types of agreements, in the workplace will go a long way to not only standing up for the people who individually face this kind of discrimination and harassment, but it will also make all of our workplaces safer. We know that the people who perpetuate, discriminatory behavior such as sexual harassment often thrive in silence. And NDAs allow that silence to perpetuate itself across workplaces, across systems, and allow perpetrators of harassment and discrimination, frankly, to get away with it over and over and over again. Connecticut, has been considering this legislation for a long time, and we need to, finally pass this to allow people to get their voices back and to ensure that Connecticut's workplaces are the safest workplaces we can ask for. Thank you very much.

[Representative Matt Blumenthal]: Thank you, Senate. I guess

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Representative Blumenthal.

[Representative Matt Blumenthal]: And I I think we're kinda testifying today together today to try to condense matters for you. Good good evening, co chairs, ranking members, and distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. Thank you again for your flexibility and persistence in holding this hearing. I'm Matt Blumenthal. I represent the Hundred 47th District in the house, and I'm testifying also in support of senate bill three five five. This bill does something straightforward. It prohibits employers from using nondisclosure agreements to silence workers about harassment, discrimination, abuse, or assault in the workplace. It voids those provisions and makes them unenforceable. It ensures that no worker can be required as a condition of employment, continued employment, or settlement to stay silent about conduct that our state and much federal law already forbids. These situations often involve an overwhelming power imbalance. Employers often have high powered lawyers. Workers are often unrepresented. NDAs can steal victims' stories, damage their careers, and prevent them from warning coworkers. That protects abusers and preserves toxic workplaces. And I think it's important to note that just under half of American workers, half of American workers are currently subject to NDAs, many of them signed upon employment. I wanna be clear about what this bill is not intended to do. It does not eliminate NDAs. It does not prevent parties from keeping settlement amounts confidential. It does not prohibit legitimate confidentiality agreements about trade secrets or business operations. It draws one clear line, you cannot use a contract to bury illegal conduct in the workplace. As, Senator Flexler already indicated, other states have done this. California, New Jersey, and Washington have already enacted similar protections without serious issues. Connecticut was workers deserve the same protections, and so I urge the committee to support SB three fifty five. Thank you very much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. I see a few hands that went up. Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. And while I appreciate always the praise from both of you for raising this issue, It goes without saying that both of you have been real leaders in this regard. And, really, I I think we have to say how much we appreciate both of you, that you have really persisted in your attempts to get this established as Connecticut law. I appreciate both of you. I know you probably know that earlier today, we had testimony from Janelle Grant, and her attorney, and that was, you know, very important testimony that really opens your eyes to what's going on in Connecticut. And, you know, I hope that we can work together, the four of us, to really figure out what's going on. Why are we having trouble getting this done in Connecticut? As you mentioned, it's been done other places, and I just hope this is the year we figure this out. I think what was really most jarring about miss Grant's testimony is that it's it's something that underscores what you were saying, representative Blumenthal, about how it allows other people to continue this behavior. And I know that's something I've heard from you, senator Flexner, as well. Until we stop this, then we actually are part of the problem. And so I appreciate both of your efforts. I don't really have a question. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you both publicly.

[Representative Matt Blumenthal]: Thank you, madam chair.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, madam chair. Representative Hughes.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: My my question to each of you, thank you for your testimony and for your championing this. Does this proposal go far enough?

[Representative Matt Blumenthal]: I'll let senator Fletcher go first.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: That's a difficult question to answer if I'm being candid, representative Hughes. I'm happy to give that a little bit more thought. I do think this proposal, given our efforts to pass similar legislation in the past, is a strong piece of legislation that will protect Connecticut residents in the workplace or people who work in Connecticut in their workplace, and is hopefully a strong step forward and a piece of legislation that can garner the necessary support to become law in Connecticut.

[Representative Matt Blumenthal]: And I would just add, you know, I think, obviously, we should take a close look and negotiations and discussions may be necessary. I think this bill strikes an appropriate balance generally. One thing I did wanna highlight is that sometimes, people will say that a bill like this is something that would disadvantage survivors. And I think what we found in other states where this is passed is that that is not the case. The reality is and and I represent plaintiffs in my private practice there are often powerful incentives even for a plaintiff's lawyer to accept a non disclosure agreement that may be ultimately disadvantageous for their client if there's serious money on the table. Mhmm.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I I,

[Representative Matt Blumenthal]: you know, I I wouldn't do that, I think. But I know that there are powerful economic incentives both for the the individual plaintiff and also for their attorney. So you have a situation where, first of all, lots of people don't have a lawyer to tell them the implications of a nondisclosure agreement if even if they're entering a settlement. They don't truly understand what's gonna happen. They're not gonna be able to talk about their career, their story, anything like that for that time period. And I think also, this bill understands those incentives, both the power of the employer to or the abuser to silence the individual, but also the fact that, you know, realities of the legal system mean that an individual who is seeking justice in this case may not fully understand or be fully advised to stand up for all their rights to tell their story, this bill would protect everyone and ensure that this silencing is taken off the table.

[Representative Anne Hughes]: Yeah. I appreciate you really articulating the scope of of this very reasonable proposal and what it can and cannot do. And and we're really looking to change a culture that has been complicit far too long in in as you both articulated, the imbalance of power to abuse with impunity workers who are vulnerable. And that needs to change, and this is a first step. So thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Any other questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, thank you both for your testimony.

[Janelle Grant]: Thank you.

[Representative Matt Blumenthal]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have Pete Brown.

[Ciro Gutierrez (SEIU 32BJ member)]: I see that.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: We can go back. I believe we see a name that is back in the queue. Kim Sander?

[Kimberly Sandor (Executive Director, Connecticut Nurses Association; RN)]: Hello. Okay. Good evening, everybody. Senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, senator Sampson, representative Weir, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for letting me jump back around in this day today. I'd like to speak today in support of HB 5,003, an act concerning workforce development and working conditions in the state. My name is Kimberly Sandor. I am a nurse, and I'm the executive director of the Connecticut Nurses Association representing nurses across all specialties and practice settings throughout our state. You've probably heard us talk about workplace violence before. The legislature has really tried to address this issue over the past few years, and it just goes to say that it's complex, it's multifactorial, and it's persistent. Part of the reasons it's persistent is reporting is poor, and most of that reporting of workplace violence incidents is poor because there is a feeling of lack of action due to reporting and a feeling of being blamed for the situations that are happening. So, our concern, our nurses are leaving the bedside. We have a staffing crisis, and this can also be seen not only as a safety issue, but as a workforce retention issue. Data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and NIOSH confirm what nurses already know. We experience workplace violence at rates more than three to five times higher than the overall workforce. When you think about that in the terms that workplace violence for nurses is underreported 30 to percent, those numbers are even higher. And stack that against who we're talking about. We're talking about police officers, corrections officers, and they're experiencing violence at those rates. The causes are multifactorial, staffing shortages, sick patients, long wait times, and increasingly complex health care systems, which increase frustration. But acknowledging the complexity can't mean that we don't do action. And this bill brings together three great ideas that we're really excited about. Section one is the wage parity protection, which really makes sure that nurses are financially whole. And it really makes sure that, while trying to prevent workplace, violence is a shared responsibility, in the end, it's not a financial burden of the nurse. And this really ensures that nurses aren't financially punished for being assaulted at work and take the time they need to recover and get better before coming back. Section three, the mandatory chart flagging. We testified on this in public health. Prior violent behavior is one of the strongest predictors of future violence, and it's well established in occupational safety research. And by staggering the state health wide information system, it it recreates a opportunity for the health care providers to take actions to prevent future incidences. There are things that we can do to prevent actions when you know what's gonna happen. We already use risk communication tools. People wear allergy alerts, fall risk indicators, infection precautions. It's a safety communication tool. But we do wanna highlight that consistency matters. Right now, JCO, the CMS, the nurses, all have different definitions. Every hospital has a different policy about what actually is workplace violence. And if we're gonna do this in the information system, we need consistency and clarity and fairness and policies in place to ensure, that it's treated fairly so that there is no unintended consequence or discrimination that does happen. And lastly, I want to applaud section six, which is the parking protections for health care workers. Health care shifting to the home. And if it is difficult for providers to get parking, which is increasing time to get actually in a patient's house, or they're in an unfamiliar neighborhoods or dark neighborhoods or look at the sidewalks these days. Not always so great, you know, to walk four or five blocks to then go and deliver services. So this really gives them, some opportunity to be able to make a choice for them about safe parking and not feel that they are going to have some unfortunate consequences of that. So together, we're, excited about these sections in 5003 and encourage your support, and we're happy to help. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Kim, for your testimony. I don't see any hands. Have a good

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: night. You too.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have, Costanza Segovia. Dale Cunningham is next.

[Dale Cunningham (VP, AFT CT Local 5049; Registered Nurse)]: Yes. I'm here.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: You may proceed.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Yay.

[Dale Cunningham (VP, AFT CT Local 5049; Registered Nurse)]: Good afternoon, senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, senator Samson, representative Weir, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Dale Cunningham. I am a resident of Ledgerd. I am currently, the vice president of AFT Connecticut local five zero four nine Laurinson Memorial registered nurses. We represent 600 over 600 nurses in in our hospital. I graduated from nursing school in 1976 from the University of Bridgeport. I listed all my experience, all the hospitals I worked at, because I've, witnessed and, heard about, assaults in my whole career. When I was a nursing assistant at a veteran's hospital on Long Island, I was thrown in the shower room by a elderly psych patient. Luckily, I wasn't injured for life, and I continued on my career. But I learned that violence occurs in the workplace consistently at every hospital that I listed. I started my career my nursing career in New York and learned about how important it was to protect the entrances of hospitals. We've just heard people talk about workplace violence. I I just wanted to point out that it, happens in in everywhere, and daily. We I've written I'm sorry. I'm a little distracted because I get we as a I I most of my career has been a neonatal nurse, and we deal with a lot of vital people, parents, family members, visitors that may have had to take in their take their rights taken away, and their child is not in their custody due to drug use, alcohol use, maybe previous abuse. And I've experienced a lot of, just angry, workplace. We to prevent anything from going, we would just call security. But as a union, representative, I've, helped many, employees who have been injured in the psych units. We have emergency psych units. We have inpatient psych units. And what a lot of people don't realize is these patients also may not be on a psych unit. They could be on any medical surgical unit because they had to be placed there for medical surgical reasons. We recently heard of a patient who just was discharged last week, had been in the patient in the hospital since October, had assaulted people daily, and to where the hospital was encouraging, we're investigating it right now, not, they in order to move these patients out of the hospital, they don't want you to document as as strongly as you should, and nobody should. We've worked over the years. If you're assaulted, we call the New London police. We go through the law that that all the laws that we've tried to get in the state of Connecticut, which I'm very grateful. And another big law is our staffing law in hospitals. But colleagues you've heard today, nurses at Bacchus, they gave their their stories.

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: Miss Cunningham, your time is almost up. Please summarize your remarks.

[Dale Cunningham (VP, AFT CT Local 5049; Registered Nurse)]: So I'm I'm just basically here to encourage. We health care workers range from very minimum wage salaries to, you know, doctors. But those at the the bottom of the scale need the most help. But the this law, this, bill will really help all health care workers that are injured and don't realize after that injury how volatile they are, as far as their, ability to, afford living. And, and that's really important, and that's why I'm here. And, thank you, for listening to me.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, miss Cunningham. Any questions or comments from the committee? I don't see any. Thank you for your testimony. Up next, we have Tracy, Wodach.

[Tracy Wodatch (President & CEO, CT Association for Healthcare at Home)]: Good evening, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez and distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Tracy Wodach, and I serve as president and CEO of the Connecticut Association for Health Care at Home. I'm also a registered nurse with more than 40 experience. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony around certain sections of HB 5,003 this evening. First and foremost, workplace violence against health care workers is unacceptable. Our home based staff deserve to be safe and supported while caring for patients, often in very challenging environments. When assaults happen, workers deserve timely and meaningful support. However, as drafted, we must oppose sections one and three of this proposal. The issue is not whether these ideas have merit. They do. Rather, it's how the proposals are structured and funded to ensure they are fair, sustainable, and consistent. In section one, Connecticut already has a comprehensive workers' compensation system that covers workplace injuries, including assaults. Creating a separate employer funded payment requirement outside the workers' compensation system without state funding would duplicate existing structures and create significant financial strain. Unfunded mandates risk destabilizing the very providers delivering care in the community. In section three, the idea of a statewide alert system is well intentioned and aimed at improving safety. However, it raises operational, legal, and financial concerns. First, definitions matter. A history of violence must be clearly and objectively defined. Health care workers often care for patients with dementia, delirium, or behavioral health conditions that may cause aggressive behavior. Without clear standards, there is a risk of inconsistent or unfair labeling. Second, the system must rely on accurate up to date information. Maintaining such a system would require significant infrastructure, especially in home care settings, and would need state support. Third, privacy and due process must be protect protected. Any system that flags individuals must balance worker safety with patient rights. We support strong prevention strategies, training, and reporting systems. Connecticut's workers' comp system already addresses workplace injuries, including violence. If the state moves forward, these proposals must include clear definitions, reliable data, appropriate safeguards, and full state funding so that the burden does not fall on providers who already lack sustainable state investment. Finally, we do support the added language to section six, establishing affirmative defense for a health care worker, especially care at home workers, during a parking violation hearing. These workers are challenged often to find adequate safe parking to gain access to their patients in the community. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Have a good evening.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you. I don't see any hands for questions or comments. Thank you for your testimony. I'm gonna go back, and I apologize, sergeant Mario Pesarip. You are next.

[Sergeant Mario Pesce (Bridgeport Police Department)]: Hi. Can you guys hear me?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: We can. Thank you, sir.

[Sergeant Mario Pesce (Bridgeport Police Department)]: Oh, thank you for having me. Good afternoon, senator Kushner, representative Sanchez, ranking members, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee.

[Representative Weir (Ranking Member, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: My name

[Sergeant Mario Pesce (Bridgeport Police Department)]: is Mario Pester, but I'm a sergeant with the Bridgeport Police Department and a proud member of ASCME local eleven five nine. I'm writing in support of h b five three eight two, and act requiring the comptroller to conduct a study of health insurance coverage for retired officers. In Connecticut, law enforcement has has some of the highest preemployment standards of any profession. Before entering the academy, officers must pass rigorous psychological, physical, and background evaluations. Yet every day, police officers take on work that places significant physical and mental strain on their bodies over the course of their career. Research and real world real world experience have long shown that law enforcement officers often face lower life expectancy and higher rates of job related health challenges compared to the general population. As a supervisor, one of my responsibilities is to listen to officers who work for me and make sure they have what they need to succeed in serving our community. Just last week, one of my office officers asked me, Sarge, how is it that law enforcement is one of the only careers where you come in in the best shape of your life, but somehow end up with a life expectancy nearly twenty years lower than your average citizen? I did not have a good answer for him. That is part of why I feel obligated to speak here today on his behalf and on behalf of my fellow brothers and sisters in law enforcement. After years on on the job, officers simply want to know they won't be left without health care security when they retire. They need reassurance that after twenty five years of missed anniversaries, children's birthdays, and holidays, that that they will, at the very least, be able to cover their medical expenses when all is said and done. For too long, many in law enforcement in Connecticut have felt overlooked because police consider this bill a stepping stone that demonstrates Connecticut still stands behind its law enforcement officers, not just when we need them, but when they when they need us the most. Recruitment and retention in law enforcement have become increasingly challenging across Connecticut. One way Connecticut can help address these challenges is by encouraging strong and reliable post retirement benefits. When officers consider a career in policing, they are not just thinking about today. They're thinking about what happens decades after service. H b five three eight two is a common sense step that moves this conversation forward and keeps the focus on making sure retired police officers are not left behind when it comes to health care. I respectfully urge the committee to support h b five three eight two, and thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, sergeant. Are there any questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Have a good night.

[Sergeant Mario Pesce (Bridgeport Police Department)]: Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Well well, what we we have sergeant stay off for one second. Sure. Senator Kushner has a question or a comment.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I'm sorry. I had a hard time getting my hand raised in time. Just a comment. You know, I think when we've looked, in this set of public hearings that we've had here, in this session and in previous sessions, we know that we're asking a lot of law enforcement and of our firefighters. And I know we've addressed things like PTSD. Now we're working to expand that to make sure that you're covered for serious bodily injures injuries. We heard very compelling testimony about that just last week. And I know we have a study bill about moving to a defined pension benefit plan, and now we're talking about retiree health care. So all of these things, I think, sort of show a picture of where we are where we've really missed out in terms of the way we have set the conditions, the best conditions to hire the best people and retain the best people for these jobs. And, you know, I I think that was the the point of what we're trying to get at here. But I just wanted to ask if you wanted to comment on that a little.

[Sergeant Mario Pesce (Bridgeport Police Department)]: Sure. So for me, this bill does not protect in, you know, directly affect me because, fortunately, I came in at a time where I was grandfathered in. But my department in particular is getting a lot newer and younger, I should say, in terms of service, and those folks don't have it. And the people that work for me, it's just hard seeing them come to work every single day and go to calls that nobody else wants to go to and deal with, you know, parts of society and the trauma and everything that they endured, and then we expect them to come in and go home and then just deal with whatever they got. And then after twenty five years, kinda just leave them hanging, for lack of better term, you know, when it comes to their health. And, you know, whether it's high blood pressure or cardiovascular issues or whatever it is or mental health or PTSD, it's not a matter of if it's gonna happen to us and me knowing it. You know, for me, particularly, it's a matter of when it's gonna happen in terms of medical issues that result being on this job and what it what it entails. So it's really for them. They deserve it. I see them come in day in and day out and, you know, they adapt to all the rules that Hartford and legislatures and society demands of us. Demands of us. Right? And I kinda explained it to them, like, we don't make the rules, we play by them. So whatever the legislature decides for us, we have to adapt, and there's nobody in this country that adapts better to legislation than Connecticut police officers. And I'll let you know and I'll go on record and say that we have some of the strictest standards. We have some of the strictest rules. We have we have one of the best organized posts in in in the country in terms of accreditation and certification. There there's nobody that goes through what we go through the way we do. And the least we can do, and and and I'm asking for it, and I'm here pleading for it and doing whatever I can for these men and women that come in every day is to just get the ball rolling and just let this be a stepping stone in the right direction. We've seen policing come under scrutiny, in the last five, ten years, and we we wanna get better and we wanna do things better and and be more professional and adapt. We know we have to adapt with the times. We just ask that, you know, the state and society adapts with us and gives us things that we need just to survive, not just do our job at the end of the day. So thank you.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: I I really appreciate your remarks, and I know we ask a lot of you. We demand a lot of you, and I think that's the right thing to do, as a society, as a legislature. But, absolutely, you're correct in saying, then we owe you. We owe you we really really are responsible for making sure that when you're living up to these standards and when you're out there protecting life and property, we have to have your back. And I think ensuring that you have good health, benefits in retirement, especially these new young officers that are coming on, is critically important. So I guess so I'm just saying thank you, for taking this initiative and showing us where we have to do better, because I think that is our responsibility as a legislature. When we ask you to do better, then we have to back it up by doing better on our part. So I appreciate your testimony here and the efforts that you've made to make sure this is on our agenda, on the labor agenda for the state legislature. So thank you.

[Sergeant Mario Pesce (Bridgeport Police Department)]: Thank you so much.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, sergeant. I don't see any other hands. So have a good night. Just be safe. Thank you for your testimony.

[Sergeant Mario Pesce (Bridgeport Police Department)]: Thank you. Good night.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next we have up next on our list we have Jose, Telesano. Norma Martinez Jose That's off. Do we have representative oh, give me one second. We have Christine Murillo.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Good evening.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Good evening.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: My name is Christine Morrow, and I'm speaking today in support to bill number h b five zero zero three section 11. My husband, Ray, joined the Plainville Volunteer Fire Department in July 1990. He served thirty five years as a dedicated volunteer firefighter, providing thousands of hours responding to various calls, supporting the community, and assisting fundraiser events to list a few. When individuals volunteer their time outside of their occupation, time away from family, that is a unique and special individual. Our volunteer fire departments are a tremendous asset to our state, and these individuals are doing it without benefits typically associated with a full time employer. It's a calling, and they volunteer to support their communities. There are many towns in our state with volunteer fire departments where men and women are going above and beyond to ensure that our communities are protected when someone calls 911. On 07/27/2025, Ray responded to a working structure fire. That tragic day, I lost my husband and my best friend. A few days later, I received a phone call that as a result of the death of my husband, I no longer had medical insurance. Another gut wrenching call as having medical insurance is a necessity. And I prayed I wouldn't need medical treatment till I could get coverage. Shortly after, I received a packet in the mail offering me medical coverage for three years at a COBRA rate. I'm responsible for paying this the full amount of this medical coverage. Approving this bill removes the burden for families of fallen volunteer firefighters to ensure they continue to have medical insurance. I will conclude. Please approve this bill. Let the Connecticut Volunteer Fallen Firefighter Families know that our elected representatives for the state of Connecticut support them, and they will be supported and provided with ongoing medical insurance. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Christine, for your heartfelt testimony, and and thank you for coming before us to to support all those, especially in your situation, who are in need. Senator Kushner.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, mister chair and Christine. First of all, please accept our condolences and for your loss and everything that you said about our volunteer firefighters is so true. And our state depends heavily on volunteer firefighters. The volunteer firefighters far outnumber the career firefighters in our state. And, you know, I know when we fashioned the the cancer relief fund, for firefighters, we were very conscious and very, clear that that would also cover any, volunteer firefighter. And I think we were very proud of that because we recognized the service, the volunteer service, of of your husband and of others. It it always surprises me when there's a big gaping hole in statute that we haven't addressed or seen, and I think you've pointed it out here today. And, hopefully, we can pass this legislation and make sure that anyone, any firefighter, regardless of whether their career or whether they are volunteer, that their families, the surviving family members, that we recognize our obligation and responsibility as a state to care for you. So I'm so glad you came forward to testify today. It's very meaningful when people come out and tell their story. It really it really makes it clear to us what what our responsibility is. So thank you for being here today, and thanks for sharing what I'm sure was a very hard, story to tell. So thank you. You're welcome.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Senator Kushner. Representative Wilson.

[Representative Wilson (Vice Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative Sanchez. I just wanna say, Christina, thank one, thank your husband for his many years of service. I understand it is a tough job, especially being a volunteer, firefighter, and really dedicating the time as you as you eloquently put it, away from family and other obligations. And so I, again, appreciate you coming and telling your story. And as senator Kushner put it, really letting us know what we have to do to to fix things. So thank you.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: You're welcome. Thank you.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, representative Wilson. Christie, we're so sorry for your loss and hopefully we can get this legislation done.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Thank you.

[Representative Gauthier]: I don't

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: see the other hands. Thank you for your testimony.

[Unidentified committee staff/participant]: Have a good evening.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Up next, we have Adam LaRocca.

[Adam LaRocca (Shop Steward, University of New Haven; Trustee, UNITE HERE Local 217)]: Hello. Can you guys hear me? Or everyone?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Yes. We can. Proceed. Thank you.

[Adam LaRocca (Shop Steward, University of New Haven; Trustee, UNITE HERE Local 217)]: Hi, everybody. Christine, I'm so sorry for your loss. That that testimony alone should be enough to pass this legislation. But anyways, I am here. I'm from Milford, and I am a shop steward at the University of New Haven and a trustee for Local two seventeen. I am testifying regarding Senate Bill three fifty eight and HB 5,003, which would protect workers' jobs for ninety days following a contractor change at their work site and require employers to provide sufficient notice ahead of such a change in management. No worker should lose their job due to no fault of their own. In our state, it is already a struggle for workers to make ends meet. Universities and corporations regularly change contractors. So right now, workers who are already struggling face the constant risk of losing their job. They face the constant threat of losing everything that they've been able to put away while working. In a state that struggles with inequality already, the situation must be fixed. I'm in a union, like I said, Local two seventeen Unite Here, and I'm glad that in our contract, we have retention rights. These rights give me peace of mind that the investments I'm making into my job will have a long term payoff. I have less to fear when a new contractor is brought in. It happens all the time. The right to protect me from a period of unemployment, which protects my savings. This provision hasn't gotten in the way of effective operations. Instead, it has ensured that workers stick around, become more skilled, and feel a deeper sense of dedications. Most workers don't have the protection that we have, but every worker in Connecticut deserves them. Passing SB three fifty eight and HB 5,003 is a vital step that you all can take this session to help build the middle class. I urge the committee to protect workers' jobs by supporting a worker retention law in this state. Thank you all for letting me testify and have a wonderful night.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, Adam. I don't see any hands for questions or comments. Thank you for your testimony this evening. Mister Clark, I don't see anybody else in the queue at this moment. Am I correct?

[Cameron Clark (Committee Clerk/Timer)]: That is correct. Yes.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Okay. Thank you so much. I thought I thought somebody else was that just sent me a a message, but that's not the case. So at this time, I will ask my cochair and ranking members if they have any comments for the committee.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Well, I will just say that I appreciate so much that you were able to stay there, representative Sanchez and representative, Wilson. I think you might be the only ones in the room at this point. I know my I I believe representative Wierin has had the ability to go home. I think senator Sampson is still probably in the building because he was in several hearings. Oh, did you get home too? Well, that's good. I really appreciate it. I I know, I I think I live the farthest away, but, I was able to get home before the roads got terribly bad, and I appreciate that. The only thing this was a a good day of testimony, and I really appreciate, everyone who came forward. And and representative Sanchez, I really appreciate you staying so I could get home safely. I I know that, you'll be announcing, I believe, our next meeting, which is on Thursday, of the labor committee. Is that correct?

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: That is correct.

[Senator Julie Kushner (Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: So thank you all.

[Representative Manny Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Public Employees Committee)]: Thank you, senator. Representative Weir or representative Sandson, anything? Okay. Well, that would conclude our public hearing for the labor and public employees, committee. And our next committee meeting will be on Thursday, March 5 in Hearing Room 1 B, followed by a public hearing at 10AM on Tuesday, March 10, in here.