AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES.
Summary
SB 472, now Public Act 26-73, revises Connecticut’s law governing employer electronic monitoring of employees. The bill requires employers that use electronic monitoring to give prior written notice to affected employees describing the types of monitoring and the specific locations where it may occur. A posted notice in a conspicuous place can satisfy the written-notice requirement, and employers must also give new hires starting on or after October 1, 2026, a plain-language statement explaining what conduct may be monitored without advance notice.
The bill creates exceptions allowing monitoring without prior notice when an employer has reasonable grounds to believe employees are engaging in conduct that violates the law, infringes the employer’s or other employees’ legal rights, or creates a hostile workplace, and the monitoring may produce evidence of that misconduct. It also exempts certain location-disclosure requirements for airports and for monitoring done for security and employee safety purposes. The law does not apply to criminal investigations, though information gathered in a criminal investigation may still be used in employee discipline.
Impact
The act amends and replaces section 31-48d of the general statutes, expanding and clarifying employer obligations regarding workplace surveillance and employee notice. It authorizes the Labor Commissioner to impose civil penalties for violations, with escalating maximum fines of $500 for a first offense, $1,000 for a second offense, and $3,000 for third and subsequent offenses. The law applies to private employers as well as the state and political subdivisions, and it takes effect October 1, 2026.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad legislative support, passing the Senate 36-0 and the House 148-0 after a committee vote of 13-6. The unanimous floor votes suggest general agreement on the need to update employee privacy and notice rules for electronic monitoring, while the committee split indicates there was some earlier disagreement or concern about the scope of the changes. Overall, the recorded votes reflect strong bipartisan approval.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on balancing employee privacy with employer security, compliance, and investigative needs. The bill’s exceptions for suspected misconduct, hostile workplace investigations, airports, and security/employee safety monitoring suggest lawmakers were trying to preserve employer flexibility while limiting routine surveillance without notice. The committee vote margin indicates some members may have been concerned about the breadth of monitoring authority or the practical burden of notice and posting requirements, but those concerns did not prevent unanimous passage on the floor.
An Act Establishing A Tax Credit For Employer Contributions To Employees' Chet Accounts And Concerning The Connecticut Higher Education Trust And Connecticut Baby Scholars Fund.