The laws governing the termination of tenured teachers in Connecticut will look significantly different beginning July 1, 2026, as a result of sweeping labor legislation passed by the General Assembly last week.
The revisions are part of Public Act 26-12, An Act Concerning Workforce Development and Working Conditions in the State, which now heads to Governor Ned Lamont for his signature after being approved by the House on April 28 and the Senate on May 1.
The termination of a public school teacher’s employment has long been subject to various procedural and substantive requirements, which are set forth in Section 10-151 of the Connecticut General Statutes (also known as the Teacher Tenure Act). The new legislation makes substantial changes to the provisions governing the termination of tenured teachers, while leaving the provisions governing the nonrenewal and termination of non-tenured teachers unchanged.
Changes Affecting Tenured Teachers
Reasons for Termination and Standard of Review
Although the Teacher Tenure Act has long identified the six permissible reasons for which a tenured teacher may be terminated, it does not specify the standard of review that will govern the proceedings. Effective July 1, 2026, the standard of review will be the same standard that is applied in other disciplinary actions under the terms of the teacher’s collective bargaining agreement. Although technically this allows for the standard to be negotiated through the collective bargaining process, we expect that in most instances the “just cause” standard will apply. Moreover, the Act amends the sixth permissible reason for termination, “other due and sufficient cause,” to read “other due and sufficient reasons.”
Hearing and Decision Process
Under current law, a tenured teacher who has been notified that the termination of their contract is under consideration may request a hearing before either the board of education, which may conduct the hearing as a whole or appoint a subcommittee of the board to do so, or an impartial hearing officer. The new legislation eliminates the option for the board (or board subcommittee) hearing. Going forward, all termination hearings must be conducted by an impartial hearing officer selected by the teacher and the superintendent, or, if the parties cannot agree on a hearing officer, through the American Arbitration Association’s expedited process.
Significantly, the hearing officer’s decision will be binding on the parties. Presently, the subcommittee or hearing officer submits its findings and a recommendation to the board of education (if the full board does not hear the matter in the first instance), and the board in all cases ultimately decides whether the teacher’s employment should be terminated. The hearing officer will now make that decision without board participation.
Appeal Rights
The new legislation also addresses what happens in the event that a termination decision is appealed. Right now, a tenured teacher who is aggrieved by the board’s decision to terminate their employment may appeal to the Superior Court, which will conduct the proceedings under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act’s standards for reviewing appeals of agency decisions. This generally requires the court to affirm the decision unless it finds that the substantial rights of the teacher have been prejudiced—that is, if the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions violate constitutional or statutory provisions, exceed statutory authority, were made using an unlawful procedure, were affected by another error of law, were clearly erroneous, or were arbitrary or capricious.
Under the new legislation, either a tenured teacher or a board of education that is aggrieved by the hearing officer’s decision may request that the court confirm, vacate, or modify the decision. Either the teacher or the board must file a copy of the hearing transcript and any other documents that will constitute the record of the appeal—although, given that the board will no longer be voting on the termination, the minutes of any board meeting relating to the termination are no longer required. The court will apply the statutory standards for appeals of arbitration awards, which require it to confirm an award unless it is necessary to vacate or modify it.
Changes Do Not Affect Non-Tenured Teachers
Under current law, teachers who have not yet attained tenure generally enjoy fewer procedural rights in the event their employer seeks to nonrenew or terminate their contract. We interpret the new legislation to include a technical revision regarding the provisions concerning non-tenured teachers, which is to distinguish between the appeal procedures applicable to tenured teachers (new) and nontenured teachers (unchanged). Aside from what we are interpreting as this technical change, the statutory provisions concerning non-tenured teachers are unaffected by the new legislation.
Conclusion
The changes outlined above will shift decision-making authority away from boards of education with respect to the termination of tenured teachers. Decisions regarding the continued employment of nontenured teachers, by contrast, still will ultimately rest with the board.
School districts are advised to seek legal counsel early in the process of terminating a tenured teacher to ensure compliance with the new procedures which take effect July 1.