First Amendment Protection Under Connecticut’s Free Speech Statute: Inconsistent Interpretations and Disappointing Results

Connecticut has taken unique strides in safeguarding employees’ constitutional rights by granting private employees the same First Amendment protections offered to public employees. However, the definition of “discipline” adopted by most courts permits employers to punish employees for exercising their free speech through non-affirmative acts like retracting promised promotions and bonuses. The absence of a clear, universal definition of “discipline” creates uncertainty for employees and employers, undermining the protective purpose of Connecticut’s free speech statute. This Comment argues that if or when the Connecticut Appellate Court takes up the issue of defining “discipline” under Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-51q, the state’s free speech statute, the court should adopt the minority middle-ground interpretation to balance the interests of employees and employers as the statute intends.