WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6845

AN ACT CONCERNING HAZARD PENSIONS FOR CERTAIN JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES.

2025 Regular Session

HB 6845 would grant hazard pensions to Judicial Department staff in hazardous roles, expanding retirement benefits and likely increasing state pension costs.

REF. BY HOUSE TO COMMITTEE ON Appropriations
#hazardousoccupations #investigators #judicialdepartmentemployees #pensions
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6845

Summary — HB 6845

Title: AN ACT CONCERNING HAZARD PENSIONS FOR CERTAIN JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES
Bill number: HB 6845
Introduced: January 30, 2025
Current status: Referred by House to Committee on Appropriations (04/29/2025)

Purpose / Intent

Based on the bill title and subject classification, HB 6845 proposes to establish or modify "hazard pension" benefits for specified employees of the Judicial Department who perform hazardous duties. The stated aim of such legislation generally is to provide enhanced retirement protections (for example, earlier retirement age, disability or death benefits, or an enhanced pension formula) for employees whose jobs expose them to greater risk than typical civil service positions.

Key provisions (noted limitation)

The full bill text and section-by-section language were not included with the materials provided. Therefore, specific statutory changes, eligibility definitions, benefit formulas, effective dates, or contribution/ funding mechanisms are not available here. Typical elements that such a bill could include are:
- Definition of which Judicial Department positions qualify as “hazardous” (e.g., judicial marshals, investigators, courtroom security personnel — exact positions would be defined in the bill).
- Eligibility criteria (years of service, age, disability, line-of-duty death).
- Pension calculation changes (enhanced multiplier, early retirement without penalty, service credit for hazardous-duty years).
- Employer and employee contribution changes or catch-up funding provisions to address pension liabilities.
- Effective date and transition rules for current employees.

Because the specific language was not provided, readers should consult the bill text and fiscal notes for exact provisions.

Who would be affected

  • Directly: Judicial Department employees designated by the bill as eligible for hazard pensions (likely security, investigative, or other front-line staff).
  • Indirectly: State retirement systems (actuarial liabilities and funding needs), the state budget and taxpayers (potential increased pension costs), and labor/employee organizations representing affected staff.

Fiscal & procedural notes

  • The Office of Legislative Research and the Office of Fiscal Analysis were asked to review the bill (referral noted 03/17/2025), indicating an expected fiscal analysis.
  • Legislative actions (chronological):
    • 01/30/2025: Bill introduced; referred to Joint Committee on Labor and Public Employees.
    • 01/31/2025: Public hearing (0206).
    • 03/06/2025: Joint Favorable report.
    • 03/07/2025: Filed with LCO.
    • 03/17/2025: Referred to OLR and OFA (analysis).
    • 03/24/2025: Favorable report out of LCO; tabled for House calendar (House calendar no. 140; File No. 187).
    • 04/29/2025: Referred by House to Committee on Appropriations (current status).

The referral to Appropriations indicates that committee-level consideration will include budgetary/fiscal impacts.

What to watch / next steps

  • Obtain the full bill text and the OFA fiscal note to assess estimated costs, funding sources, and specific eligibility/benefit language.
  • Monitor the Appropriations Committee for hearings, amendments, or votes.
  • Stakeholders to monitor: Judicial Department leadership, affected employee groups (unions), the State Treasurer/retirement system actuaries, and municipal finance officers if any local impacts are possible.

If you want, I can: (a) locate and quote the full bill text and fiscal note, (b) draft a short explainer of likely pension cost impacts based on common hazard-pension models, or (c) prepare questions stakeholders should raise at committee hearings. Which would you prefer?

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.