SB 1427 expands Connecticut’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program to cover additional school-related workers and makes conforming changes to the statutes governing the program. The bill revises definitions in the PFML program to include certain public employees, specifically employees of local or regional boards of education and nonpublic elementary or secondary schools who do not require professional certification, and it creates an alternative method for calculating base period and base weekly earnings for those workers. It also authorizes the Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Authority to adopt procedures and policies to administer these new categories of covered employees, including contribution collection, benefit calculations, private plan oversight, and data-sharing with other state agencies.
The bill also amends the separate state family and medical leave law to extend eligibility to school employees who are not professionally certified, including those employed by local or regional boards of education and nonpublic schools, and updates definitions such as eligible employee, employer, family member, and health care provider. In addition, it removes prior special provisions tied to paraeducators and replaces them with broader language that allows the Labor Commissioner to adopt regulations for family and medical leave benefits for paraeducators employed in educational settings. The act is effective October 1, 2025.
Its practical impact is to broaden paid and unpaid family leave protections for a subset of school workers who were previously excluded or treated differently under existing law, while also requiring the PFML Authority and the Labor Department to adjust administrative systems, eligibility rules, and benefit calculations. Employers affected include local and regional boards of education and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, particularly for noncertified positions, and the state agencies involved in administering and enforcing the program.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced out of the Labor and Public Employees Committee on a 9-4 vote and later passed the House and Senate with notable opposition, suggesting broad backing for expanding leave benefits but meaningful concern about the scope and administration of the changes. The recorded votes indicate the measure was contested, likely reflecting differing views on cost, employer obligations, and the extension of benefits to school employers and employees.
The main points of contention appear to be the expansion of leave coverage to school employees and the administrative and fiscal implications for public and private school employers. The bill’s new alternative earnings calculation for noncertified school employees and the authority’s expanded power to use state data, share data across agencies, and contract for services may also have raised concerns about implementation, privacy, and program oversight. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a targeted equity and workforce-support measure for school employees, while opponents appear to have questioned the breadth of the expansion and its operational consequences.
SB 1427 amends Connecticut’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance statutes and related family and medical leave provisions to add certain school employees—especially noncertified employees of local or regional boards of education and nonpublic elementary or secondary schools—to coverage. It also authorizes the Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Authority and the Labor Department to adopt new procedures, data-sharing arrangements, and an alternative earnings calculation for these workers, thereby changing how benefits are administered and financed for affected employers and employees.
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable treatment. It passed the Labor and Public Employees Committee on a 9-4 vote and later cleared both chambers, but the recorded floor votes show substantial opposition, indicating that while many lawmakers supported expanding leave benefits to school employees, a significant minority remained concerned about the policy’s scope, cost, and administrative complexity.
The primary contention centers on whether and how far to extend paid and unpaid family leave benefits to school employees, especially noncertified staff at local and regional boards of education and nonpublic schools. Opponents likely focused on the added obligations for school employers, the need for special earnings calculations, and the authority’s expanded administrative powers, including data sharing and contracting. Supporters likely emphasized equal access to leave benefits for school workers and the need to modernize the program to cover employees who had been treated differently under prior law.