An Act Concerning Limitations On The Use Of Nondisclosure Agreements.
SB 1035 would limit the use of nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements in employment-related settings. It makes void and unenforceable any agreement term that bars an employee, independent contractor, or volunteer from disclosing or discussing conduct they reasonably believe involves legally impermissible discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage-and-hour violations, sexual assault, or other conduct against clear public policy. The bill also prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for making such disclosures, from requiring prohibited confidentiality terms, and from enforcing them through lawsuits or threats.
The bill also amends Connecticut’s employment discrimination law to add a new protected category covering retaliation or discrimination against employees and independent contractors who disclose or oppose discriminatory practices. It preserves exceptions for trade secrets, proprietary information, confidential information that does not involve illegal acts, and settlement terms that only protect the amount paid in settlement. It further provides that certain preexisting employment-related nondisclosure or nondisparagement clauses entered into before October 1, 2025, are void only if they were signed at the outset of employment or during employment, while settlement agreements are treated differently. The bill applies to agreements signed by Connecticut residents and states that Connecticut law governs those provisions.
In practical terms, the bill would expand employee protections and restrict employers’ ability to use confidentiality provisions to silence complaints about workplace misconduct. It would create a civil cause of action with actual damages or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is greater, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, for violations occurring on or after October 1, 2025. It also directs the law to be liberally construed and makes the remedies cumulative, signaling a broad enforcement approach.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is supportive but not unanimous. The bill received favorable committee votes in both the Labor and Public Employees Committee and the Judiciary Committee, though each vote included a meaningful minority of no votes. That pattern suggests broad agreement with the bill’s worker-protection goals, alongside some concern about the scope of restrictions on private agreements and employer enforcement rights.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the ban on nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses, the retroactive effect on some preexisting employment agreements, and the potential impact on settlement practices and employer confidentiality interests. Supporters appear to favor transparency and anti-retaliation protections for workers reporting misconduct, while opponents likely worry about limiting contract freedom, exposing employers to litigation, and reducing the ability to resolve disputes confidentially.
The bill would amend Connecticut General Statutes section 46a-60 and add a new section governing employment-related nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions. It would create new statutory prohibitions on certain confidentiality clauses, expand anti-retaliation protections, and authorize civil remedies including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. It affects employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, independent contractors, interns, and volunteers, and it would apply Connecticut law to covered agreements involving state residents.
The bill appears to have generally favorable momentum in committee, with joint favorable votes in both LAB and JUD. However, the repeated 9-4 and 25-15 vote splits show that support was not unanimous and that a substantial minority had reservations. The discussion context is limited, but the vote pattern suggests the bill is viewed positively as a worker-protection measure while still drawing concern from members wary of its reach.
The likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s broad invalidation of nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions, especially in employment agreements and some preexisting contracts, and whether the law goes too far in restricting employers’ ability to protect confidentiality and settle disputes. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s treatment of settlement agreements versus employment-start agreements, as well as the new private right of action and statutory damages. Supporters are likely focused on transparency, accountability, and protection for victims of discrimination, harassment, wage violations, and sexual assault, while opponents are likely concerned about contract enforceability and business confidentiality.