Connecticut bends gender rules
It should come as little shock to most employers that discrimination on the basis of gender is not only a bad idea, but also illegal. But one state has now joined with more than a dozen others in adding a twist to this rule.
July 13, 2011 at 10:32 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It should come as little shock to most employers that discrimination on the basis of gender is not only a bad idea, but also illegal. But one state has now joined with more than a dozen others in adding a twist to this rule. Continuing with the recent trend of progressive policies passing in state legislatures, Connecticut has approved an amendment taking this common-sense approach one step further, and will now include gender identity on the list of protected classes under the state's employment law.
The amendment, HB 6599, which was signed by Governor Dan Malloy July 1, mandates that all employers with three or more employees are prohibited from making employment decisions based on “gender identity or expression.” The law previously held that employers could not discriminate based on gender or race.
According to the law, “'Gender identity or expression' means a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.”
Not all employers are affected, however, as the state allowed for religious corporations or entities to set their own employment guidelines.
The bill will go into effect October 1.
It should come as little shock to most employers that discrimination on the basis of gender is not only a bad idea, but also illegal. But one state has now joined with more than a dozen others in adding a twist to this rule. Continuing with the recent trend of progressive policies passing in state legislatures, Connecticut has approved an amendment taking this common-sense approach one step further, and will now include gender identity on the list of protected classes under the state's employment law.
The amendment, HB 6599, which was signed by Governor Dan Malloy July 1, mandates that all employers with three or more employees are prohibited from making employment decisions based on “gender identity or expression.” The law previously held that employers could not discriminate based on gender or race.
According to the law, “'Gender identity or expression' means a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.”
Not all employers are affected, however, as the state allowed for religious corporations or entities to set their own employment guidelines.
The bill will go into effect October 1.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250