Labor and Public Employees Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-5249
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS.
Vote Date: 3/10/2022
Vote Action: Joint Favorable
PH Date: 3/3/2022
File No.: 128
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Labor and Public Employees Committee
Rep. Michael A. Winkler, 56th Dist., Rep. Joshua M. Hall, 7th Dist.,
Rep. Travis Simms, 140th Dist., Rep. Anthony L. Nolan, 39th Dist.
Rep. Anne M. Hughes, 135th Dist., Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, 3rd Dist.,
Rep. Corey P. Paris, 145th Dist., Rep. Susan M. Johnson, 49th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
Employment in Connecticut, like a majority of the United States, is at will which means that
unless employees have the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement or another
employment contract, Connecticut workers can be terminated from their jobs for any reason
or no reason, as long as the reason is not an unlawful one. Non-compete agreements are
contracts between workers and firms that delay employees ability to work for competing
business. Employers use these agreements for various reasons including reducing costs
associated with turnover. These types of agreements were traditionally more common in
professional or managerial jobs whereas today they are becoming common in entry-level
jobs. This bill would limit the use of non-compete and exclusivity agreements and would be
enforceable only if specific requirements are met, including that the employee must earn at
least three times the minimum wage.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Office of Governor Ned Lamont, Governors Associate Policy Director, Patrick Hulin; supports
this bill stating that it will make a considerable difference for low-wage workers, especially
women and people of color. It is stated that noncompete agreements are harming the
economy and individuals who work within the state as they depress wages, make it
challenging to switch jobs, and reduce entrepreneurship.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
University of Florida, Levin College of Law, Gerald A. Rosenthal Chair in Labor and Law,
Professor Rachel Arnow-Richman; supports this bill stating that the usage of noncompete
agreements can have a negative impact on the economy and that legislation is needed to
describe the limits of noncompete use and to penalize abuse. It is stated that a majority of
workers can easily be taken advantage as they have limited legal knowledge and, therefore,
this bill is needed to protect vulnerable workers and other companies who may not want to be
sued by former employers.
Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association; supports this bill stating that it places fair restrictions
on the right of employers or companies to force employees to sign covenants. It is stated that
this protection is already offered to medical professionals within the State of Connecticut and,
therefore, should be extended to employees of all sectors. It is stated that COVID has made
the workforce increasingly challenging for workers to navigate and noncompete agreements
can ban workers from other jobs in their chosen fields. It is further stated that noncompete
agreements limit competition which is negative for the state economy and labor market.
Economists, Matthew Johnson and Evan Starr; supports this bill stating that noncompete
agreements often have negative consequences for workers including difficulties pursuing
similar jobs and earning a more desirable wage. It was further stated the non-compete
agreements disproportionately impact employees occupying low-wage jobs, are rarely
negotiated by both parties, negatively impact both employees and firms. It is recommended in
this statement to penalize companies that require employees to sign noncompete
agreements in states where noncompete agreements are unenforceable as they make it
challenging for companies to hire and they reduce dynamism.
National Employment Law Project, Senior Staff Attorney, Najah Farley; supports this bill
stating that it would minimize the use of non-compete agreements for employees and
independent contractors in Connecticut which, it is stated, has a negative impact on workers
as they limit job opportunities and workers rarely have the opportunity to negotiate these
agreements. It is stated that this bill is beneficial as it would alleviate the forcible nature of
these agreements. It is also stated that the wage threshold included in this bill would better
protect workers in low wage positions.
Harvard Labor and Worklife Program, Senior Fellow, Economic Policy Institute, Director of
the State and Local Enforcement Project, Terri Gerstein; supports this bill stating that
noncompete agreements negatively influence a workers ability to switch jobs and to receive
more competitive wages. It is further stated that this bill prevents unneeded non-competes
and protects vulnerable workers.
Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C.; supports this bill stating that no
roadblocks should interfere with an employee leaving a job or an employer lawfully firing an
employee. It is stated that this bill would reduce non-compete agreements to a rational scope,
limit non-competes to higher-wage workers, require employees are notified ahead of time that
they may be subject to sign a non-compete. It is recommended that the Appropriations
Committee should amend the bill by disallowing employers from imposing non-competes onto
laid off employees. It is further recommended that this bill be retroactive.
Page 2 of 4 HB-5249
Connecticut AFL-CIO, President, Ed Hawthorne; supports this bill stating that non-competes
limit a workers right to move to a higher paying job. It is stated that non-competes suppress
wages for everyone, which negatively impacts economic growth.
Connecticut Womens Education and Legal Fund, MSW Policy Practice Intern, Emma O.
Heintz; supports this bill stating that it will defend workers from being forced to stay in an
unfulfilling position or from being forced to seek careers not in their area of expertise. It is
stated that noncompete agreements impact low-wage workers who are typically women or
people of color. It is stated that non-compete agreements negatively impact the state
economy as they encourage workers to move to states that have barred these agreements.
Connecticut Legal Services Program, Legislative/Policy Advocate, Sara Parker McKernan;
supports this bill stating that it will protect low wage workers. It is stated that it will protect
workers as it does not allow for employers to require their workers to sign an agreement not
to work in a specific geographical area or skill-area if they leave their job. It is stated that 27
states have passed bills similar to this legislation.
Service Employees International Union, Stacey Zimmermann; supports this bill.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Connecticut Bar Association Business Law Section, Legislative Liaison, Danielle Edwards,
Esq: opposes this bill stating that the bill would have unintended consequences, is
impermissibly vague, is too far-reaching, and is confusing for employers. It is further stated
that this bill would make Connecticut less appealing to businesses as other states have not
passed similar legislation and, therefore, companies may be more interested in settling in
other states.
Insurance Association of Connecticut, President, Eric George; opposes this bill stating that
noncompete agreements provide protection to businesses and insurance companies from
losing trade secrets, innovative technologies, and other important information. It is stated that
these agreements are already limited, and no further changes are needed as employers
could be irrevocably harmed.
Connecticut Business & Industry Association, Vice President of Public Policy, Eric Gjede;
opposes this bill stating that non-competes are necessary for businesses to protect trade
secrets, emerging technologies, client lists, and other confidential and proprietary
information. It is stated that non-competes are already limited by the courts. It is also stated
that the minimum wage threshold included in this bill is negative as it could invalidate an
agreement.
Connecticut Society of Certified Public Accountants, Chief Executive Officer, Bonnie Stewart;
opposes this bill stating that it will have negative consequences for CPA businesses and the
CPA industry. It is stated that non-compete agreements are beneficial for CPA businesses as
they protect the loss of client lists, trade secrets, and other confidential and propriety
information. It is stated that this bill will make it easier for employees fired for misconduct to
share company trade secrets.
Resident, Connecticut, David Godbout; opposes this bill.
Page 3 of 4 HB-5249
Reported by: Riona Casey Date: March 22, 2022
Page 4 of 4 HB-5249


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 31-50a
LAB Joint Favorable: 31-50a
File No. 128: 31-50a