Those present at today’s Human Services Committee meeting voted favorably on a bill that would order the legislature to conduct a study on the potential impact of removing the state’s sub-minimum wage for employees with disabilities.
While state governments may set their minimum wage as high as they decide, the federal minimum wage sets states’ minimum wage floors. However, the 1938 bill that first initiated the concept of a federal minimum wage, the Fair Labor Standards Act, carved out a minimum wage exemption for employees with disabilities. Currently, there is no federal minimum wage for disabled employees, and states are allowed to set this wage at whatever number they choose, if they choose to do so at all.
Employers who wish to utilize a sub-minimum wage must file for a 14(c) certificate through the Federal Department of Labor. Per CT Mirror, as of 2023, there were 18 employers certified under 14(c) in the state of Connecticut, though two of them indicated they would not renew their certifications in 2024.
The 2025 bill was first brought before the Labor Committee and, at the time it was drafted, sought to eliminate the sub-minimum wage outright. The Labor Committee held a public hearing on the bill on Feb. 20, with supporters of the bill including disability rights advocates, Connecticut’s AFL-CIO, and those with disabilities themselves.
“This bill is personal to me because as a high school student I was paid subminimum wage of $1, $2, or $3 per hour,” testified Christian Allyn. “This made me feel lesser than everyone else, which as a person with a disability, I felt that way already. Eliminating the subminimum wage would provide individuals with disabilities with the worth and dignity that they deserve.”
Opponents of the bill argued that removing the sub-minimum wage may have the unintended consequence of removing the opportunity for those with disabilities to work at all. Several groups that provide employment to individuals with disabilities, such as Connecticut Arc, testified in opposition. Jordan Scheff, Commissioner of DDS, testified neither for nor against the bill, but told lawmakers that “it is important to acknowledge the complexities associated with this topic.”
“Across the state, many families, providers, and stakeholders have expressed support for a subminimum wage as an opportunity to directly carve out an employment sector for individuals with intellectual disability,” wrote Scheff. “These stakeholders emphasize that without a subminimum wage, employment opportunities for individuals with intellectual disability would be limited and far more difficult to obtain.
Since then, the bill has been revised to request only that a task force be constructed to “examine benefits to the state in eliminating such subminimum wage and barriers to eliminating such subminimum wage and potential solutions.” This version of the bill was passed out of the Labor Committee on March 18th and was referred back to Human Services on April 8th.
Despite the fact that the bill has been reduced to the commission of a study, several Republican lawmakers still voted in opposition to it in today’s meeting. Rep. Jay Case (R-Colebrook) voiced his concern that if the wage is raised, “those jobs will be eliminated, and those people won’t have things to do during the day.”
“I don’t believe we should be looking at this, this is a very minimal amount of people,” said Case. “If we bring them up and even consider moving them to a minimum wage, we are going to box them out of a job.”
Rep. Lucy Dathan (D-Norwalk) said that while she “echoed” Case’s concerns regarding “unintended consequences” she still felt it was an issue worth consideration. She said lawmakers should look at “what some other states are doing,” and said she herself would be interested in sitting on any future working group that may be assembled to further study the issue. She said lawmakers should look for ways to “ensure that folks in the IDD community have gainful employment, fulfilling lives, and also don’t hurt themselves for their HUSKY C benefits as they age, because that’s also an issue.”
“I do feel that we need to at least look at this, and at least need to study it, so that we can understand what the best practices are,” said Dathan. “So with that, I will vote yes, because I would like to understand how the issue could play out in our state.”
Rep. Stephen Meskers (D-Greenwhich) said that he too shared the concerns of Case and Dathan. Meskers said he believed “providing meaning in life is so important,” that providing employment for those with disabilities helps to give that sense of meaning, and that he would not want to jeopardize such opportunities.
“I’m not adverse to looking at the issue, but I’m highly concerned,” said Meskers. “When I look at the employers who do this, for the most part, particularly as I see in interactions in grocery stores, there are people that — they’re interacting. People are kind to them, they have a place to go, and their productivity may not be great, but it’s, I think it’s so important.”
Ultimately, Mesker joined eleven other Democratic representatives in voting yes, while four Republicans voted no. Seven Committee members were absent; assuming the vote continues along party lines, the final vote would be 16-7 in favor. If passed out of committee, it would require passage by both legislative chambers to be signed into law.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Rep. Case says they shouldn’t bother, because it’s not many people. How demeaning! People deserve to be treated equally and with dignity. Disabled people should have the same money-making opportunities as everyone else, and if possible, the realistic hope of having homes of their own and to achieve their goals.