CT SB435: AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEMS PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES.

In one paragraph

Connecticut's SB 435 (2026) would have set rules for employers that use automated employment-related decision processes. Deployers would have had to give applicants and employees notices, a statement of reasons for adverse decisions with a chance to correct data and appeal to human review, and an annual independent bias audit; violations of sections 3 to 8 would have been unfair trade practices enforced solely by the Attorney General; aggrieved workers could also have sued. It also covered state-agency AI use. After a Judiciary Committee favorable report, it was tabled for the Senate calendar April 20, 2026 and never voted on; it died when the session adjourned May 6, 2026.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None: the bill did not pass. It would have required employers using AI hiring and workplace decision tools to give notices, allow appeals with human review, and obtain annual independent bias audits.

Key provisions

1. 1Developers of an automated employment-related decision process (including AI hiring and screening tools) would have had to give deployers the information they need; a developer could contract to assume the deployer's duties (§ 2)
2. 2Deployers would have had to disclose to applicants and employees that they are interacting with such a process, and give written notices before collecting personal data and before decisions (§§ 3-5)
3. 3For an adverse decision, deployers would have had to give a high-level statement of reasons, a chance to examine and correct the data and to appeal with human review, and the latest bias audit on request (§ 6)
4. 4No such process could be used without human review by a trained person with authority to change the decision (§ 7)
5. 5Deployers would have had to hire an independent auditor, approved by the Labor Commissioner, for a bias audit before deployment and annually, file and publish a summary, and stop use if disparate impact was found unless corrective actions were approved (§ 8)
6. 6Would have barred retaliation (§ 9), made violations of §§ 3-8 unfair trade practices enforced solely by the Attorney General (§ 11), and let aggrieved applicants and employees (or their union) sue, with developers and deployers jointly and severally liable (§ 12)
7. 7Would also have limited state-agency AI use without legal authorization (§ 15), made AI use a subject of public-sector collective bargaining, and required employers giving federal WARN layoff notices to disclose whether layoffs relate to AI (§ 24)
8. 8Substitute bill; effective October 1, 2026 if enacted; tabled for the Senate calendar April 20, 2026 and died at adjournment May 6, 2026

Latest legislative action

Apr 20, 2026. Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, Senate

Sponsors (showing 5 of 33)