Labor and Public Employees Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.:
SB-1179
Title:
AN ACT AMENDING CONNECTICUT PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE.
Vote Date:
3/23/2023
Vote Action:
Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date:
3/9/2023
File No.:
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:
The Labor and Public Employees Committee.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This proposal seeks to amend the Connecticut Family Leave Act and Connecticut Paid
Family and Medical Leave Act to include tribal enterprise, and to prohibit disability benefits
from being offset by benefits received under these programs. These changes would seek to
cover more individuals under the program and allow workers to utilize PFML and short-term
disability as needed, to the full extent necessary. It also clarifies the definition of municipality
with regards to PFML.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Connecticut Judicial Branch, External Affairs: They do not take a position on this
proposal but requested that language is added clarifying the victims of a crime can
concurrently receive compensation from both the PFMLA and the Office of Victim
Compensation Program.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Peter Baker, President, Metal Trades Council New London: They offered comments in
support of this proposal. They shared their experience with Electric Boat who replaced the
previously negotiated benefits with PFML from 26 weeks to 12 weeks of pay. They attempted
to challenge this but lost in arbitration due to old contract language, the outcome of which has
caused workers to lose negotiated benefits and extended the time it takes to receive benefits.
Page 2 of 4 SB-1179
Mary Lee Kieman, CEO & President, YWCA Greenwich: They support this legislation
stating that it addresses a gap in current policy that neglects Indigenous peoples and groups
tribal enterprises and governments to opt into the program. Additionally, it would provide a
solution to the problem of employer-provided short term disability plans being replaced by
PFML benefits.
Caid Murry, Field Representative, AFT: They offered testimony in favor of this legislation.
They emphasized that employers are reducing access to CPL and short-term disability
benefits by inaccurately defining the CT Paid Family Medical Leave Act as state-sponsored
other income benefits. This in turn creates a loophole that offsets or delays short term
disability payments or blocks members from receiving any payments. They highlighted that
employers are making mid-contract changes, such as requiring employees to apply for CTPL
before they can access their short-term disability benefits.
Rochelle Palache, Vice President, 32BJ SEIU: They offered testimony supporting this
legislation. They highlighted that the current paid leave policy in the state is flawed, with only
11% of workers being eligible. This limited reach exacerbates the states levels of inequality,
specifically affecting women and communities of color who are overwhelmingly represented
in low paying, hourly jobs where voluntary paid leave is rare. Additionally, they highlighted
that the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the need for workers to take leave without fear of
reprisal or loss of wages.
Deborah Wright, Political Director, United Auto Workers Region 9A: They provided
testimony in support of this proposal. They highlighted how some employers are requiring
employees to exhaust PFML benefits before receiving STD benefits. They argued that SB
1179 would serve as a solution to this issue by prohibiting employers from reducing or
offsetting their own disability insurance policy by using PFML benefits.
Erin Choquette, CEO, CT Paid Leave Authority: They offered testimony in favor of this
proposal, highlighting multiple issues that it would address. Firstly, it defines the term
"municipality" in a consistent and clear way for both the CT Paid Leave program and the CT
Family Medical Leave Act. Secondly, it creates a process for tribal groups to opt into the CT
Paid Leave program. Thirdly, it clarifies that insurance polices and employer sponsored plans
can reduce the benefits they provide only to the extent necessary to ensure that the
employee does not receive more than 100% of their regular wages
James Demetriades, Attorney, Ferguson Doyle & Chester P.C: They offered testimony
supporting this legislation. They highlighted that when the CTPFLA was passed, multiple
provisions intended to protect collective bargaining rights such as Sec 31-49s, although it is
not the case in current practice. Employers have blocked access to short term disability
benefits, that employees bargained and paid for. Additionally, members have been blocked
from supplementing their short-term disability policy to the CT paid leave, effectively paying
for two benefits, and only getting one.
Louise Gibson, Secretary & Treasurer, Local 1298: They offered testimony in support of
this legislation. They stated currently employers are using employees' contributions to reduce
their own expenses of providing Short Term Disability to employees. This practice by
employers effectively eliminates the employee's ability to collectively bargain and requires
Page 3 of 4 SB-1179
them to pay into two benefits while only receiving one. This legislation would address these
serious issues.
Ed Hawthorne, President, CT AFL-CIO: They offered testimony supporting this proposal.
They stated that it would clarify existing legislation, so that employers can no longer reduce
or offset their own expenses by using employees PFML contributions.
Christine Moretti, Home Health Aide, Visiting Nurse: She offered comments sharing her
experience filing for both short term disability and CT Paid Family leave, and highlighted how
disorganized, confusing, and lengthy the process was. She strongly supports this legislation.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Abigail Connell, Senior Counsel, SunLife Financial: They offered testimony in opposition
of this proposal. They urged the legislature to consider how this bill may increase premium
costs for disability insurance. They argue that short term disability policies allow for benefits
to be reduced by any amount paid concurrently through PML, resulting in reduced rates for
disability insurance. The proposed bill may eliminate the reduction of benefits, resulting in
increased claim costs and premium increases. Additionally, the bill's applicability to employer
funded benefit plans may result in costly litigation, which they may not be able to afford.
Eric Dupont, Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Guardian Life Insurance:
They offered testimony in opposition to this proposal. They claimed that it would have expose
consumers to undo harm including; employee with severe or multiple disabilities would no
longer have financial protection after the 12 weeks of PFML is exhausted; an employee who
takes 12 weeks of PFML to care for a family member will no longer have protection for a
disability incurred in that 52 week period; an employee may choose not to use PFML to care
for a family member out of fear of not having protection for a future disability. Lastly, they
emphasized that the cost of this proposal is too high and does not increase the benefit for a
family leave period.
Brooke Foley, General Counsel, Insurance Association of CT: They strongly oppose this
proposal, as it would prohibit short term disability policies and self-funded plans from
coordinating benefits to keep rates low for policyholders. They argued that the bill's
ambiguous language will create confusion during the claims process, leading to costly
litigation that will not benefit employees who need immediate access to wage replacement
benefits. Furthermore, they argued that the bill would result in much higher short-term
disability policy premiums, which would likely lead to employers dropping these voluntary
benefits for employees and employees opting out of STD coverage, ultimately harming
employees access to STD benefits.
Eric Gjede, Vice President of Public Policy, CBIA: They offered testimony in opposition to
this proposal. They argued that there are significant public policy implications, such as
incentivizing beneficiaries to remain out of the workforce because their benefits could be
equivalent to their wages, which in turn would worsen the states workforce shortage.
Additionally, it will likely lead employers to no longer be able to afford short term disability
policies, which would cause employees to relay solely on PFML, ultimately reducing the total
benefits available to an employee.
Page 4 of 4 SB-1179
Sarah Montgomery, ACLI: They offered comments in opposition to this proposal. They
highlighted that STDI benefits do not reduce CTPFMLA benefits but rather can make the cost
of STDI insurance more affordable. They argue that STDI benefits prevent over insurance
and keep costs reasonable for employers, which may be discontinued if this bill is enacted.
Debra Milardo, RZ Design Associates: They offered testimony in opposition to this
legislation. They argued that its unintended result could financially harm employees by
increasing premium coverage of short-term disability. They also emphasized that for smaller
employers, this legislation may cause it too no longer be affordable. Lastly, they highlighted
the potential impact on employers' ability to provide quality service within their industry. They
cited the worker shortage and how employees would make more money under this programs
being on leave than at work. This could incentivize them to remain home, rather than
returning to work.
Diane Paskiewicz, Consulting Opthalmologists: They offered comments in opposition to
this bill. They argued that it would create an incentive for workers to stay home since they
would be receiving the same as if they were working. They argued that if this bill passes that
more employees will try and take advantage of this system.
Garrett Sheehan, President & CEO, Greater New Haven and Quinnipiac Chambers of
Commerce: They oppose this bill, arguing that it would worsen the current workforce
shortage by incentivizing workers to stay home.
Reported by: Sebastian Musante, Assistant Clerk
Date: 4/6/2023