Connecticut Senate Bill SB00348

Connecticut 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/2/16
• Refer: 3/2/16
• Report Pass: 3/21/16
• Refer: 3/28/16
• Report Pass: 4/4/16
• Refer: 4/13/16
• Report Pass: 4/19/16
• Engrossed: 4/27/16
• Report Pass: 4/29/16

Caption

An Act Concerning Employment Protections For An Employee Who Serves As A State Or Federal Juror.

Impact

This legislation aims to update subsection (a) of section 51-247a of the general statutes, reinforcing the rights of jurors in the state. By codifying protections against termination or coercive practices by employers, SB00348 seeks to promote a more just and fair work environment for employees serving in this capacity. If enacted, this will enhance the legal protections already in place, reflecting the community's recognition of the importance of jury service as a civic responsibility.

Summary

SB00348, known as An Act Concerning Employment Protections for an Employee Who Serves as a State or Federal Juror, was introduced to strengthen the protections for employees called to serve on juries. The bill proposes amendments to the existing legal framework regarding the treatment of employees who receive a jury summons or actually serve on a jury. It emphasizes that employers must not discriminate against or coerce employees on the basis of their jury service, ensuring that employees can fulfill their civic duty without fear of job loss or repercussions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB00348 appears to be overwhelmingly positive, as it addresses a significant concern for many employees who might fear employer retaliation when summoned for jury duty. Supporters, including legislative committee members, view the bill as a necessary safeguard for workplace rights and an affirmation of the value of civic participation. The bill enjoyed unanimous support during voting in the Senate, indicating a collective understanding of its importance across party lines.

Contention

While the discussions around SB00348 were largely supportive, some minor points of contention may have arisen during deliberations. Critics might raise concerns about potential abuse of the protections offered, such as employees using jury service as an excuse for absenteeism or neglecting their job responsibilities. However, no substantial opposition was evident in the documented proceedings, and the bill moved smoothly through legislative processes, suggesting that its benefits outweighed any perceived drawbacks.