Connecticut is the Latest State to Pass AI Legislation Impacting Employers

Connecticut employers that rely on AI-driven tools for recruiting, screening, or workforce management now face a detailed statutory framework governing those practices. Public Act No. 26-15 (the “Act”) was signed into law on June 2, 2026. The Act addresses subjects ranging from automated hiring technology to whistleblower channels for employees at AI developers. The compliance timeline is staggered: some provisions took effect immediately, while the most operationally intensive obligations take effect in October 2027. Connecticut is the latest state to take steps towards regulating use of AI in the employment sphere, following Colorado, Illinois, New York City, California and others.

This post provides an overview of the Act and flags important compliance deadlines for employers. 

Key Terms: Automated Employment-Related Decision Technology (AEDTs), Deployers and Developers

The Act applies to “automated employment-related decision technology” (“AEDT”), defined as “any technology that processes personal data and uses computation to generate any output, including, but not limited to, any prediction, recommendation, classification, ranking, score or other information, that is a substantial factor used to make or materially influence an employment-related decision.” An “employment-related decision” is defined as “any decision, made based on any individual’s personal data, to hire, promote, discipline or discharge such individual, to renew such individual’s employment, to select such individual for any training or apprenticeship or with respect to such individual’s tenure or terms, privileges or conditions of employment.” The Act therefore governs a broader range of employer actions, as compared to existing AI laws like New York City’s Local Law 144, which is limited to hiring, promotion and screening. 

The Act creates two categories of regulated parties: (1) “deployers” (those who put the technology into use), and (2) “developers” (those who develop or intentionally and substantially modify the technology), with most employers falling into the former category. 

Notice Obligations

• Disclosing AEDT Interactions: Beginning October 1, 2027, any deployer using an AEDT that is intended to interact with an employee or applicant in Connecticut must disclose, in plain language, that the individual is interacting with such technology. No notice is necessary when it is obvious to a reasonable person that they are interacting with an AEDT.
• Disclosing Deployer’s AEDT Use in Decision Making: Additionally, a deployer who uses an AEDT to make an employment-related decision must provide the affected employee with a written notice disclosing the following, prior to the decision being made: (a) that the deployer has deployed an AEDT; (b) the purpose of the AEDT and the nature of the employment-related decision; (c) the trade name of the AEDT; (d) the categories of personal data concerning the employee or applicant that the AEDT will analyze or process, and how the data will be assessed in reaching a decision; (e) the sources of the personal data described in (d); and (f) contact information for the deployer.

Additional Requirements for AEDT Use

• To enable deployers to provide the above disclosures, developers of an AEDT must provide deployers with all necessary information (though the Act does not define “necessary information”). This obligation only applies if an AEDT was advertised, marketed, configured, contracted for, sold, or licensed to be used to materially influence an employment-related decision.
• Any violation of the disclosure provisions surrounding use of an AEDT constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Connecticut law and is enforceable solely by the Attorney General. In other words, there is no private right of action for individual employees. For violations occurring on or before December 31, 2027, the Attorney General may issue a cure notice allowing correction of the violation within 60 days before bringing an action, provided the Attorney General determines the violation is curable. 

Trade Secret Exceptions

The Act includes a safe harbor provision for trade secrets, making clear that a developer or deployer may withhold information on the basis that it constitutes a trade secret or is otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal law. However, if either a deployer or developer withholds information under this provision, it must send a notice to the person from whom the information is being withheld disclosing (1) that it is withholding information, and (2) the basis for its decision to withhold. 

Other Important Changes

• Effective October 1, 2026, WARN Act notices filed with the Connecticut Department of Labor must disclose whether the layoffs that are the subject of the notice are related to the employer’s use of artificial intelligence or another technological change.
• Effective October 1, 2026, the Act also amends Connecticut’s anti-discrimination statute (§ 46a-60) to make explicit that the use of an AEDT is not a defense to a complaint alleging a discriminatory employment practice. Thus, if an employer’s AI screening tool has a discriminatory effect, the employer cannot deflect liability simply by pointing to the algorithm. However, the statute does permit a commission or court to consider evidence of anti-bias testing or similar proactive efforts to avoid discriminatory outcomes, including the quality, efficacy, recency, and scope of such testing and the employer's response to results.

Practical Takeaways

Connecticut employers should begin compliance planning now, including by: 

• Conducting an internal audit to identify all AI-driven tools used in employment-related decisions, keeping in mind the Act’s broad AEDT definition and its carve-outs for generic software, incidental tools, and purely diagnostic or statistical tools.
• Determining whether your organization qualifies as a “deployer,” a “developer,” or both under the Act, as this classification dictates the scope of your compliance obligations.
• Drafting standardized disclosure templates so they are ready well before the October 2027 deadline.
• Reviewing vendor agreements to ensure AI developers are contractually obligated to supply the information deployers need for their disclosures, particularly given that the Act does not specify exactly what developers must furnish.
• Establishing and documenting a regular cadence of anti-bias testing for any AEDT in use, since courts may consider such evidence – including its quality, recency, and scope – when evaluating discrimination claims.

Mintz’s Employment Practice is ready to assist with any questions regarding the use of artificial intelligence in connection with employment decisions. 

Subscribe To Viewpoints