- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Banking & Credit and Business & Consumer Services industries
- within Real Estate and Construction topic(s)
As we reported back in 2021, California passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring certain employers operating warehouses and distribution centers to provide notice to employees of any productivity quotas, along with an identification of the adverse employment actions which could be imposed for failure to meet a quota. In the conclusion to our ASAP outlining the requirements of the new law, we noted: "Much has been written about a possible 'California contagion' – that new laws that originate in California may eventually spread across the country."
Our prognostication turned out to be correct. Since 2022, four other states have followed suit and adopted similar warehouse quota notice laws: New York (effective 6-19-23), Minnesota (effective 7-1-23), Washington (effective 5-31-24) and Oregon (effective 1-1-25). Now one more state has joined the group: Connecticut.1
The new requirements are embedded in a recently passed "emergency omnibus" bill – Bill No. 298, which runs 121 pages, and covers a variety of subjects beyond the quota notice law, including provisions relating to education, public safety, elections, and intermediate care facilities.2
Which Employers Are Covered by the New Connecticut Law?
In many respects, Connecticut's warehouse quota notice law tracks the laws in the other five states. But there are some notable differences as well.
Like its predecessors in other states, Connecticut's new law applies only to non-exempt employees who work at "warehouse distribution centers," at which the employer employs at least a defined number of employees, and only within operations identified by specific codes within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).3 The specific NAICS codes listed in the Connecticut law to define potentially covered operations are similar to the codes identified in laws enacted in other states, but the Connecticut law contains a few additional codes that have not appeared in any of those laws.4 The Connecticut law excludes drivers or couriers traveling to and from a warehouse distribution center, and applies only to larger operations: those with 250 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center in the state or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state.5 The law applies to the warehouse distribution operations of both the operators of such businesses, as well as staffing agencies and other third parties that provide labor to such operators.
What Does the New Connecticut Law Require?
The law broadly defines a "quota" as a work performance standard where an employee is assigned or required to perform at a specified productivity speed or a quantified number of tasks or to handle or produce a quantified amount of material within a defined time period. This definition generally tracks the definition used in other state laws.6
However, the Connecticut law includes alternative definitions of a "quota." For example, a quota also includes a work performance standard where actions by an employee are measured between time spent performing tasks and time spent not performing tasks within a defined time period.7 Further, the Connecticut law contains a novel variation that provides a quota includes a system under which an employee's performance is ranked in relation to the performance of other employees.
The new law requires covered employers to provide employees with a written description of any quota, and of any potential adverse employment action that may result from a failure to satisfy such quota.8 The notice must be provided to current employees not later than August 1, 2026. For employees hired after August 1, 2026, such written description must be provided to an employee upon hire.
If an employer changes a quota, notice must be provided as soon as practicable and confirmed in writing within two business days.
The law provides that quotas may not interfere with an employee's right to take a meal break or to use the restroom (including reasonable travel time to and from the restroom). These provisions are found in the laws of other states.
The new law also provides that a quota may not set a performance standard that measures an employee's total output over an increment of time that is shorter than such employee's work day, and may not set a performance standard that is based solely on ranking the performance of an employee in relation to the performance of other employees. These are novel limitations not found in the laws of the five other states with quota notice laws.
The law includes a recordkeeping requirement – covered employers utilizing quotas must maintain, for three years, records regarding work speed data and notices of quotas.
Employees and former employees have the right to request and receive copies of prior notices and their personal work speed data.
Covered employers may not retaliate against employees who make requests for such information, or who take action to enforce their rights under the law. The law establishes a rebuttable presumption that any adverse action taken within 90 days following such action was retaliatory.
What Are the Potential Consequences for Violations?
The new law creates a private right of action for employees to bring a lawsuit to enforce their rights under the law, and the state attorney general may also pursue such claims.
Civil penalties may be imposed for violations: $1,000 for a first violation, $2,000 for a second violation, and $3,000 for a third or subsequent violation. The statute does not specify whether the penalties are to be assessed per employee or on an aggregate, lump-sum basis.
What's Next?
Connecticut's new warehouse quota notice law is set to go into effect on July 1, 2026. Employers in the warehouse and distribution center sectors with operations in the Constitution State should promptly consult with employment law counsel to evaluate whether they are covered by the new law, and, if so, develop a plan for coming into compliance.
Footnotes
1. In addition, during 2025 alone, a similar bill passed but was vetoed in Illinois, and similar bills were introduced in other states including Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Georgia. On the federal level, a similar bill was introduced on July 31, 2025 - S. 2613. The bill has been assigned to the Senate HELP Committee but otherwise has not gained traction.
2. Three prior attempts to pass a similar bill in Connecticut – all in 2025 – fell short of becoming law: SB 8, SB 1254 (a Governor's proposal), and HB 6907. In February 2026, Governor Ned Lamont introduced a new Governor's version (SB 92), drawing from the earlier bills but with some modifications. The final verbiage in Bill No. 298 generally tracks the 2026 Governor's version, but with notable differences including expansion of the NAICS Codes that define coverage, a more elaborate definition of the term "quota," and acceleration of the effective date from October 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026.
3. The law applies to business operating under the following NAICS Codes: 493110 for General Warehousing and Storage; 423 for Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods; 424 for Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods; 454110 for Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses; 492110 for Couriers and Express Delivery Services; 452311 for Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters; 452319 for All Other General Merchandise Stores; and 444110 for Home Centers.
4. Specifically, the final three (3) NAICS codes listed in the CT law do not appear in any predecessor laws of this kind and also were not present in the Governor's proposals or other earlier proposals.
5. This differs from the CA, WA, OR, and NY laws under which coverage may be triggered by 100 or more employees at a covered facility, and mirrors the 250-employee trigger under the MN law.
6. Notably, unlike the laws in other states, the definition of a quota does not include any reference to adverse employment actions. However, that concept is covered in the notice requirement of the new law.
7. Only Minnesota's law contains a similar variation in the definition of a quota.
8. Employers might usefully consult their counsel about whether such data could potentially be used as part of selection criteria for a reduction in force, and if so, to evaluate whether to refer to this in the notice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
