DocDraft Logo

Connecticut Independent Contractor Agreement Template

Connecticut prescribes nothing for this document and then reads it closely: part B of the ABC test is disjunctive, and part C comes with ten named factors.

Find out where you stand in Connecticut

What do you need the contractor agreement for?

DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.

Introduction

An Independent Contractor Agreement engages a freelancer, consultant, or tradesperson in Connecticut without creating an employment relationship. Connecticut imposes no written contract mandate and prescribes no required clause, disclosure, notice, or filing for this document. Most summaries stop at that negative, and stopping there is misleading, because the Connecticut ABC test at Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii) reads the agreement closely. Service performed by an individual is deemed to be employment unless the hiring party satisfies the administrator on all three parts. Part A asks whether the individual is free from control and direction "both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact," so the contract is one of two independent channels through which the classification can fail. Part B is written in the disjunctive: the service must be performed either outside the usual course of the business or outside all of the places of business of the enterprise. Part C asks whether the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature, and the Connecticut Supreme Court turned that phrase into an enumerated ten factor inquiry in Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 324 Conn. 822 (2017). Connecticut does not tell you what to put in the document, and then decides cases by reading it.

Key Things to Know

  1. 1

    Connecticut requires no written independent contractor agreement and prescribes no clause, disclosure, notice, signature formality, or filing for one. The document still decides cases, because part A of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii) tests freedom from control both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact. The Connecticut Department of Labor states that part A is not satisfied where the person for whom the service is performed retains the right to exercise direction and control, even when the right is never used. A reserved supervisory right can defeat part A on the face of the page, which makes a carelessly drafted agreement worse than none.

  2. 2

    Part B of the Connecticut test is disjunctive. The service must be performed either outside the usual course of the business for which it is performed or outside all of the places of business of the enterprise, and either branch satisfies the part. California's Labor Code Section 2775 has no places of business alternative. So a Connecticut contractor whose work sits squarely inside the client's usual line of business can still satisfy part B by performing it entirely away from the client's premises, a route that does not exist in California. Where the work happens is a drafting decision in Connecticut in a way it is not in California.

  3. 3

    Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 324 Conn. 822 (2017), docket SC 19651, officially released March 21, 2017, holds that evidence of services performed for third parties is not required to prove part C. It is one factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis, and the court enumerated ten: state licensure or specialized skills; holding out as an independent business through business cards, printed invoices, or advertising; a place of business separate from the putative employer; capital investment such as vehicles and equipment; managing risk through the worker's own liability insurance; performing under the worker's own name; employing or subcontracting others; a saleable business or going concern with an established clientele; performing services for more than one entity; and whether the services affect the worker's goodwill rather than the client's.

  4. 4

    Eight of those ten factors are ordinary contract representations, which is what makes the case useful when drafting and not only when defending an audit. Licensure, holding out as a business, capital investment, the worker's own insurance, performing under the worker's own name, the right to subcontract, an established clientele, and non-exclusivity can each be recited and warranted in the agreement. The separate place of business is a recital plus a real world fact, and it does double duty on the second branch of part B. Goodwill is largely a fact rather than a clause.

  5. 5

    The recitals have to be true, and one of them is worth almost nothing standing alone. Southwest Appraisal reaffirmed JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413 (2003), that the mere contractual freedom to provide services for third parties is not by itself dispositive under part C, so a bare non-exclusivity clause wins nothing. The Connecticut Department of Labor adds that an individual who forms a business in response to an offer of work as an independent contractor will not meet the customarily engaged or independently established criteria of part C. A recital cannot create a business that did not exist before the engagement.

  6. 6

    The ABC test is the unemployment compensation test, not a single Connecticut standard. The Connecticut Department of Labor says so in its own words: Connecticut agencies use different rules and tests because different agencies are responsible for separate aspects of law, the Department of Revenue Services refers to common law rules, the Labor Department's Unemployment Compensation Division uses the ABC test, and the Workers' Compensation Commission considers other factors. Workers' compensation status runs on the common law right to control analysis under Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc., 245 Conn. 613 (1998). One engagement can be resolved differently by each agency, so no agreement can settle the question across the board.

  7. 7

    Enforcement is multi-agency, and the ordinary case is an assessment rather than a prosecution. The Joint Enforcement Commission on Employee Misclassification brings together the Connecticut Department of Labor, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Revenue Services, the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, and the Workers' Compensation Commission, and no single agency is designated the lead. In Southwest Appraisal itself the audit produced $2,486.73 in back unemployment contributions plus interest across two calendar years before any penalty was added. Contested determinations run from an appeals referee under Section 31-242 to the Board of Review, and then to the Superior Court under Section 31-249b.

Key decisions before you file

Before you file a Independent Contractor Agreement in Connecticut, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Independent Contractor Agreement guide walks through them.

Open the Independent Contractor Agreement guide

Customize your Independent Contractor Agreement Template with DocDraft

Connecticut Independent Contractor Agreement

1. Parties. This Independent Contractor Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of ________________, [YEAR] (the "Effective Date") by and between [COMPANY NAME], a [TYPE OF ENTITY] organized and existing under the laws of [STATE], with its principal place of business at [COMPANY ADDRESS] ("Company"), and [CONTRACTOR NAME], an individual residing at [CONTRACTOR ADDRESS] ("Contractor"). Company and Contractor may be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."

2. Services. Contractor shall perform the following services (the "Services"): [DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES]. Contractor shall deliver: [LIST OF DELIVERABLES].

Means and manner. Contractor shall determine the means, manner, methods, and sequence of performing the Services. Company may specify the results to be achieved and the deadlines for achieving them, but does not direct how the Services are performed. Company neither exercises nor reserves any right to direct or control the manner in which Contractor performs the Services.

Place of performance. Contractor shall perform the Services at ______ (Contractor's own place of business, premises of Contractor's choosing, or remotely), and shall not be required to perform the Services at any place of business of Company, except ______ (any narrow exception required by the nature of the Services). The Parties record that Contractor's place of performance is not a place of business of Company.

Note on Section 2. Part B of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii) is disjunctive: the service must be performed either outside the usual course of the business for which it is performed or outside all of the places of business of the enterprise. Either branch satisfies the part. Where the Services fall inside Company's usual course of business, the place of performance term is the term doing the work, and it has to describe what actually happens rather than an aspiration.

3. Independent Contractor Status. Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee, agent, partner, or joint venturer of Company. Nothing in this Agreement creates an employment relationship.

Freedom from control. Contractor is and will continue to be free from Company's control and direction in connection with the performance of the Services, both under this Agreement and in fact. Company does not set Contractor's working hours, does not require Contractor to follow a prescribed method or sequence, does not require the use of Company equipment, premises, uniforms, or a Company email address, and does not supervise or approve the manner of performance.

Contractor's independently established business. Contractor represents and warrants that, as of the Effective Date and independently of this engagement: (a) Contractor holds each license required for the Services, being [LIST LICENSES AND NUMBERS], and possesses the specialized skills the Services require; (b) Contractor holds itself out to the public as an independent business, including through ______ (for example business cards, printed invoices, advertising, or a business website) in Contractor's own name; (c) Contractor maintains a place of business separate from any place of business of Company, located at [ADDRESS]; (d) Contractor has invested Contractor's own capital in that business, including ______ (for example vehicles, tools, equipment, or software), and supplies these at Contractor's own expense; (e) Contractor manages its own risk and carries its own ______ (for example commercial general liability or professional liability) insurance in the amount of $[AMOUNT], at Contractor's own expense; (f) Contractor performs the Services under Contractor's own business name and does not hold out as an employee of Company; (g) Contractor may employ or engage subcontractors to assist with the Services, at Contractor's expense and under Contractor's direction, and remains responsible to Company for the Services; (h) Contractor operates an ongoing business with an established clientele, or actively markets the Services to other clients; and (i) Contractor's business existed and was held out to the public before this engagement, and was not formed in response to Company's offer of work.

Invoicing. Contractor shall invoice Company for the Services on Contractor's own invoice form, in Contractor's own business name.

Not exclusive. This Agreement is non-exclusive. Contractor is free to perform services of the same nature for other clients during the Term, and Company does not require exclusivity.

Goodwill. The reputation and goodwill generated by Contractor's performance of the Services accrue to Contractor's own business, except as to Company's trademarks, the work product assigned under Section 6, and Company's own customer relationships.

Note on Section 3. These representations track the ten part C factors enumerated in Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 324 Conn. 822 (2017). Two limits apply. First, the mere freedom to serve third parties is not by itself dispositive, so the non-exclusivity term and paragraph (h) add weight only alongside the rest of the set. Second, the representations have to be true. The Connecticut Department of Labor states that an individual who forms a business in response to an offer of work as an independent contractor does not meet the customarily engaged or independently established criteria of part C, which is why paragraph (i) is here. If it is not accurate, delete it and reconsider the engagement rather than signing.

4. Fees and Payment. Company shall pay Contractor a fixed fee of $, an hourly rate of $ per hour, or the milestone amounts set out in Schedule A. Company shall pay Contractor within [NUMBER] days after receipt of Contractor's invoice. Contractor bears the opportunity for profit and the risk of loss on the Services.

5. Term and Termination. This Agreement begins on the Effective Date and continues until ______ or completion of the Services, unless terminated earlier under this Section. Either Party may terminate this Agreement on [NUMBER] days written notice to the other Party. Either Party may terminate immediately on written notice if the other Party materially breaches this Agreement and fails to cure within [NUMBER] days after written notice describing the breach.

Effect of termination. On termination, Company shall pay Contractor for all Services performed through the effective date of termination. Contractor shall deliver all work in progress for which Contractor has been paid. Sections 6, 7, 8, and 10 survive termination.

6. Ownership of Work Product. Upon full payment of all amounts due, Contractor assigns to Company all right, title, and interest in the deliverables created specifically for Company under this Agreement, including all copyright and other intellectual property rights in them.

Contractor materials. Contractor retains all right, title, and interest in any tools, methods, templates, know-how, and other materials that Contractor owned before the Effective Date or develops independently of this Agreement. To the extent any such materials are incorporated into a deliverable, Contractor grants Company a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free license to use them as part of that deliverable.

7. Confidentiality. Contractor may receive information of Company that is marked confidential or that a reasonable person would understand to be confidential ("Confidential Information"). Contractor shall not use Confidential Information except to perform this Agreement and shall not disclose it to any third party without Company's prior written consent. Confidential Information does not include information that is or becomes public through no fault of Contractor, was known to Contractor without restriction before disclosure, is independently developed without use of Company's Confidential Information, or is rightfully received from a third party without restriction.

8. Taxes and Benefits. Contractor is responsible for all federal, state, and local taxes on amounts paid under this Agreement. Company will not withhold income tax, Social Security, or Medicare contributions, and will report payments on IRS Form 1099-NEC where required.

No benefits. Contractor is not eligible for and waives any claim to employee benefits provided by Company, including health insurance, retirement contributions, paid leave, and workers' compensation coverage, except where such coverage is required by law. The Parties acknowledge that this Section records how they intend to treat the engagement and does not itself determine Contractor's status under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii), under the workers' compensation act, or for state tax purposes.

9. Indemnification. Each Party shall indemnify the other against third-party claims arising from the indemnifying Party's breach of this Agreement, negligence, or willful misconduct.

10. General. Governing law. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut, without regard to its conflict of laws rules.

Entire agreement. This Agreement, together with its Schedules, is the entire agreement between the Parties on its subject matter and supersedes all prior discussions.

Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only in a writing signed by both Parties.

Assignment. Neither Party may assign this Agreement without the other Party's prior written consent.

Severability. If any provision is held unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement remains in effect.

Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, including by electronic signature. No notarization or witness is required.

Signatures.

Company: ______________________________ Date: ____________

Print name and title: ______________________________

Contractor: ______________________________ Date: ____________

Print name: ______________________________

Note on scope. Connecticut does not require this Agreement to be in writing and prescribes no clause, disclosure, notice, or filing for it. The Connecticut specific drafting above is directed at the ABC test in Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii), which governs status under the Unemployment Compensation Act. The Department of Revenue Services applies common law rules and the Workers' Compensation Commission considers other factors, so this document does not settle status under those regimes, and no document can. This is general information, not legal advice; attorney review is available.

Connecticut Requirements for Independent Contractor Agreement

Connecticut ABC Test, All Three Parts (Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii))

Service performed by an individual is deemed to be employment, irrespective of whether the common law relationship of master and servant exists, unless the hiring party shows to the satisfaction of the administrator that all three parts are met. The parts are conjunctive and the burden sits on the hiring party. Failing any single part defeats independent contractor status. The presumption runs against contractor status from the start, so the drafting job is to record facts that rebut it, not to declare a conclusion.

Part A Is Tested Under the Contract as Well as in Fact (Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I))

Part A asks whether the individual has been and will continue to be free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact. The contract is an independent channel, so an agreement that reserves supervisory approval, mandates hours, prescribes methods or sequence, or requires use of the client's premises and equipment can fail part A on its face. The Connecticut Department of Labor states that part A is not satisfied where the right to direct is retained even when it is not used.

Part B Is Disjunctive, So Place of Performance Is a Drafting Lever (Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II))

The service must be performed either outside the usual course of the business for which it is performed or outside all of the places of business of the enterprise. Either branch satisfies the part. California's Labor Code Section 2775 has no places of business alternative, so this route is specific to Connecticut. Draft the place of performance term deliberately, and make sure it describes what actually happens, because part B is proved by conduct and not by the clause alone.

Part C Is a Ten Factor Totality Inquiry (Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III); Southwest Appraisal Group, 324 Conn. 822 (2017))

Part C asks whether the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as the service performed. Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act holds that performance of services for third parties is not required and is one factor among ten weighed under the totality of the circumstances, with no dispositive factor or set of factors. The ten are licensure or specialized skills, holding out as an independent business, a separate place of business, capital investment, the worker's own liability insurance, performing under the worker's own name, employing or subcontracting others, a saleable going concern with an established clientele, service for more than one entity, and whether goodwill accrues to the worker.

A Bare Non-Exclusivity Clause Is Not Enough (JSF Promotions, 265 Conn. 413 (2003))

Southwest Appraisal reaffirmed JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act that the mere freedom to provide services for third parties is not by itself dispositive under part C. The case runs in both directions: actual third party work is not required, and contractual permission to do it is not sufficient. Include the non-exclusivity term, but as one item in the representation set rather than as the answer.

Recitals Cannot Manufacture Part C (Connecticut Department of Labor guidance on Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III))

The Connecticut Department of Labor states that an individual who forms a business in response to an offer of work as an independent contractor will not meet the customarily engaged or independently established criteria of part C. Representations in the agreement must be true and the business they describe must exist independently of the engagement. A representation the hiring party would not be comfortable proving is a reason to revisit the engagement, not a clause to leave in.

No Written Contract Mandate and No Prescribed Clause (Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222; chapters 557, 558, and 568)

No Connecticut statute requires an independent contractor agreement to be in writing, prescribes its contents, requires a disclosure or notice, requires notarization or witnesses, or requires filing or registration. Nothing in Connecticut law changes what must appear in the document. The Connecticut Department of Labor treats the existence of a written contract as one evidentiary factor bearing on the intent of the parties under the common law rules, not as a requirement.

Exclusions From the Definition of Employment (Section 31-222(a)(5))

Connecticut has no independent contractor exemption schedule of the California type, meaning no list of occupations routed from the ABC test to a softer standard. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(5) instead lists services excluded from the definition of employment, which removes them from the Unemployment Compensation Act entirely so that the ABC test is never reached. That is a different legal operation from an exemption. Each lettered subparagraph carries its own qualifying conditions and should be read in full before it is relied on.

Different Tests Apply by Agency and by Act (Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii); Hanson v. Transportation General, 245 Conn. 613 (1998))

The Connecticut Department of Labor states that Connecticut agencies use different rules and tests because different agencies are responsible for separate aspects of law: the Department of Revenue Services refers to common law rules, the Labor Department's Unemployment Compensation Division uses the ABC test, and the Workers' Compensation Commission considers other factors. Workers' compensation status is decided under the common law right to control analysis in Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc. Do not assume a result under one regime carries to another.

Civil Penalties and Stop Work Orders (Section 31-69a; Section 31-76a(c))

Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-69a(a) makes an employer, officer, agent, or other person liable to the Labor Department for a civil penalty for each violation of the wage and hour and related chapters and for each violation of Section 31-288(g), and provides that a Section 31-288(g) violation is a separate offense for each day. Violating a stop work order issued under Section 31-76a(c) carries a civil penalty of one thousand dollars, with each day a separate offense. Under Section 31-69a(c) the Attorney General institutes the civil actions on the Labor Commissioner's complaint. Connecticut enacted a large omnibus labor act in 2026. Confirm the current Section 31-69a penalty amounts against the statute before relying on them.

Criminal Exposure Is Gated on Intent (Section 31-288(g); Section 31-284(b), (c))

Section 31-288(g) makes an employer guilty of a class D felony, and subject to a stop work order issued by the Labor Commissioner, where the employer fails to meet the workers' compensation coverage requirements of Section 31-284(b) or (c), or, with intent to injure, defraud, or deceive an insurer or the state, knowingly misrepresents one or more employees as independent contractors or knowingly supplies false information about employee numbers to obtain a lower premium. The fraud route requires intent and knowing misrepresentation, so a good faith classification error is a civil and back contribution matter.

Multi-Agency Enforcement and the Appeal Path (Section 31-57h; Section 31-242; Section 31-249b)

The Joint Enforcement Commission on Employee Misclassification comprises the Connecticut Department of Labor, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Revenue Services, the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, and the Workers' Compensation Commission, and the commission's own materials state that any of those departments can be contacted about misclassification. There is no single lead regulator. A contested unemployment classification determination is heard by an appeals referee under Section 31-242, then by the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division, then on appeal to the Superior Court under Section 31-249b.

Forthcoming General Contractor Wage Liability (Public Act 26-12)

Connecticut has no construction specific classification statute. Public Act 26-12, signed May 11, 2026, instead makes general contractors jointly and severally liable for wages unpaid by subcontractors of any tier on private construction, renovation, and rehabilitation projects, for contracts entered on or after January 1, 2027, with exceptions including public works, home improvement, and small residential projects, and with a notice requirement before an employee brings a claim. It does not alter the ABC test or add a classification rule, but it raises what a subcontractor's misclassification can cost the general contractor.

Frequently Asked Questions

No. No provision of the Connecticut General Statutes conditions independent contractor status on a written agreement, prescribes contents for one, or penalizes its absence. Status turns on the ABC test in Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii) as applied to the facts. A writing is still worth having, and in Connecticut it is worth drafting carefully rather than quickly, because part A tests freedom from control under the contract as well as in fact. An agreement that reserves supervisory rights, sets hours, or prescribes methods can defeat the classification by itself.

Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii) provides that service performed by an individual is deemed to be employment, whether or not the common law relationship of master and servant exists, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the administrator that the individual has been and will continue to be free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact; that the service is performed either outside the usual course of the business or outside all of the places of business of the enterprise; and that the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as the service performed. The parts are joined by and, the presumption runs against contractor status, and the hiring party carries the burden. Failing any one part is enough to lose.

Because part B is disjunctive. The statute says the service must be performed either outside the usual course of the business or outside all of the places of business of the enterprise, so satisfying either branch satisfies the part. That gives Connecticut a route California does not have: Labor Code Section 2775 has no places of business alternative, so in California work inside the hiring entity's usual course of business fails prong B no matter where it is done. In Connecticut the same engagement can still clear part B if the work genuinely happens away from the client's premises. The clause only helps if it matches reality, so do not write it around a contractor who works at a client desk four days a week.

The Connecticut Supreme Court held in Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 324 Conn. 822 (2017), docket SC 19651, released March 21, 2017, that evidence of services performed for third parties is not required to prove part C. It is a single factor within a totality of the circumstances analysis with no dispositive factor or set of factors, and the court listed ten factors to weigh. It also cautioned against giving primacy to the relative size or success of the worker's own business, noting that doing so would chill contracting with legitimate small businesses such as start-ups and people transitioning to retirement. The practical effect is that a contractor with one client is not automatically an employee in Connecticut.

No, and this is where the case is most often oversold. Southwest Appraisal cuts in both directions. It reaffirmed JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413 (2003), that the mere freedom to provide services for third parties is not by itself dispositive under part C, at the same time as it held that actual third party work is not required. A bare non-exclusivity clause therefore wins nothing on its own. Its value is that it is one of ten factors, and the court's own reasoning is that the factors work as a portfolio. The set of representations is the drafting play, not any single clause.

Only where they are true. Recitals put facts on the record in the form the administrator is looking for, which is genuinely useful when the facts exist. They cannot manufacture facts that do not. The Connecticut Department of Labor states that an individual who forms a business in response to an offer of work as an independent contractor will not meet the customarily engaged or independently established criteria of part C, so a recital describing an independent enterprise that came into existence to take this engagement will not survive review. Draft the representations to describe a business that existed beforehand, and treat a representation you would not be comfortable proving as a signal to reconsider the engagement.

No. The Connecticut Department of Labor states that Connecticut agencies use different rules and tests because different agencies are responsible for separate aspects of law, and names the split: the Department of Revenue Services refers to common law rules, the Labor Department's Unemployment Compensation Division uses the ABC test, and for determining a covered claim the Workers' Compensation Commission considers other factors. The ABC test is codified in the unemployment compensation statute rather than as a general definition of employee, and workers' compensation runs on the common law right to control analysis under Hanson v. Transportation General, Inc., 245 Conn. 613 (1998). Treat each regime as its own question.

Connecticut has no roster of occupations that escape the ABC test in favor of a softer standard, which is a structural difference from California and one that cuts against the hiring party. What Connecticut has instead is a list of services excluded from the statutory definition of employment at Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(5). An exclusion removes the service from the Unemployment Compensation Act altogether rather than routing it to a gentler test, which is a different legal operation with different consequences. The lettered subparagraphs carry their own qualifying conditions, so read the exact text of the one you think applies before relying on it. For most professional and creative engagements there is no exemption to argue and only the ABC test to satisfy.

The common outcome is a money assessment. An unemployment audit produces back contributions plus interest, as it did in Southwest Appraisal, where three misclassified appraisers generated $2,486.73 in contributions for two calendar years. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-69a adds civil penalties payable to the Labor Department for violations of the wage and hour and related chapters and of Section 31-288(g), with each day of a Section 31-288(g) violation a separate offense, and sets the penalty for violating a stop work order issued under Section 31-76a(c) at one thousand dollars with each day a separate offense. The Attorney General institutes the civil actions on the Labor Commissioner's complaint. Separate penalties apply for failing to carry workers' compensation coverage. Connecticut enacted a large omnibus labor act in 2026, so confirm the current figures against the statute.

Only in a narrow case, and the distinction matters. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-288(g) makes an employer guilty of a class D felony, and subject to a stop work order, where the employer fails to meet the workers' compensation coverage requirements of Section 31-284(b) or (c), or, with the intent to injure, defraud, or deceive an insurer or the state, knowingly misrepresents one or more employees as independent contractors or knowingly provides false information about employee numbers to obtain a lower premium. The fraud route is gated on intent and on knowing misrepresentation. Getting the ABC test wrong in good faith is a back contribution and civil penalty problem, not a prosecution.

No. Connecticut has no construction industry classification statute, no analogue to New York's Construction Industry Fair Play Act, and no construction specific presumption, written contract requirement, or variant of the test. Construction workers are classified under the same Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii) as everyone else. Connecticut went at the problem from the wage side instead. Public Act 26-12, signed May 11, 2026, makes general contractors jointly and severally liable for wages left unpaid by subcontractors of any tier on private construction, renovation, and rehabilitation projects, for contracts entered on or after January 1, 2027, with exceptions and a notice requirement. It does not change the classification test, but because the test decides whose wages are at issue, it raises what a subcontractor's misclassification can cost the general contractor.