You asked if the Connecticut Supreme Court decision declaring Sunday blue laws unconstitutional applies to holiday sales. You also asked if the legislature has considered measures requiring stores to close on holidays, and what the arguments are for and against such closings.

SUMMARY

The state Supreme Court did not address the issue of holiday sales in its decision in Caldor's Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc. , (177 Conn. 304 (1979)), when it declared unconstitutional CGS § 53-302a, the law banning Sunday retail sales. At issue in Caldor's was whether a statute initially enacted to ensure a common day of rest for Connecticut residents accomplished its goal, despite its numerous exemptions. The Court held it did not, finding that the number and type of exemptions undermined the law's legitimate purpose.

It is not clear how the Court would rule if someone were to similarly challenge CGS § 53-303b, the law banning retail sales on certain holidays. Although the Court would likely apply the same analysis as in Caldor's, the rationale for banning sales on holidays differs from that for Sunday closings. Rather than to provide a common day of rest, the holiday closing law was intended to promote the observance of patriotic, religious and civic holidays, to allow employees to spend time with their families, and to protect small store owners by forcing large chain stores to close.

Legislative committees have held hearings on bills that would have prohibited shopping malls from requiring tenant stores to remain open on holidays, but the legislature has not enacted such a law. Proponents of the bills said they would enable a small store owner in a mall to observe certain holidays without being penalized under the terms of his lease. Opponents argued that consumers with little time to shop expect mall stores to be open on certain holidays. Bills also have been introduced concerning holiday sales by package stores. These bills are addressed in OLR Reports 2000-R-0436 and 2000-R-0918 .

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE BLUE LAWS

The Connecticut Supreme Court declared the law requiring retail stores to close on Sundays unconstitutional in Caldor's. Sunday closing laws, known as blue laws, were first codified in Connecticut in 1650, and had been continually modified by the legislature, beginning in 1902. The most recent modifications were made in 1978, just before the Court decided Caldor's. PA 78-329 exempted manufacturing from the Sunday closing law and allowed retail operations between Thanksgiving and Christmas. At that point, the Court noted, the law, CGS § 53-302a, exempted from its provisions: charitable, religious, and government workers; workers essential to the public safety and welfare; workers who sold designated items in designated businesses; and workers in any of 24 specific businesses, including all factory workers.

Any act regulating economic activity must bear a reasonable relationship to a proper legislative purpose. Additionally, the act must accomplish its purpose in a way that is fair, rational and does not discriminate (Carroll v. Schwartz, 127 Conn. 126 (1940)). Applying these rules, the Court found that the law was meant to provide workers with a common day of rest, a legitimate exercise of the legislature's power to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. But the Court ruled that the exemptions to the law were so arbitrary and unreasonable that the law did not achieve its purpose. For example, the Court found the law allowed the sale of some food items by small groceries and drug stores but not by supermarkets, and the sale of car repair parts by those in the repair business, but not by hardware stores. Accordingly,

the Court found that CGS § 53-302a failed the "rational connection test" because the exemptions were arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable, and did not comply with constitutional equal protection and due process requirements.

HOLIDAY CLOSINGS

CGS § 53-303b bars businesses from engaging in work or business, or from employing others for work or business on six specific holidays: Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day.

It grants the same exemptions as CGS § 53-302a. If any of the holidays falls on a Sunday, the holiday is considered to be the following Monday. (Under federal law, Labor Day is always the first Monday in September and Thanksgiving Day is the fourth Thursday in November. ) The law does not mention such other state holidays as Washington's Birthday, Lincoln's Birthday, Martin Luther King Day, Columbus Day, and Veterans' Day.

The Court did not address the validity of CGS § 53-303b in Caldor's, although it noted it was one of several laws related to the unconstitutional Sunday closing law. If someone challenges the law, the Court would likely apply the same analysis as in Caldor's, examining whether the statute achieves its intended purpose without violating the Constitution.

Testimony from a 1961 General Law Committee hearing on the original version of the law banning most holiday retail sales indicates it was meant to encourage the observance of patriotic, religious, and civic holidays; to allow employees to spend time with their families; and to protect small store owners by stopping large chain stores from doing business on holidays (General Law Committee PH 2/20/61).

It is not clear how the Court would rule if someone challenged the law's constitutionality. (The Law Revision Commission is recommending that the legislature remove CGS § 53-302a from the statutes, but is not making a similar recommendation concerning CGS § 53-303b. )

ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE HOLIDAY SALES

Since Caldor's, the legislature has made several attempts to regulate retail sales on holidays. Instead of requiring stores to close, however, these have typically involved attempts to prohibit shopping malls from requiring tenant stores to remain open.

In 1988, SB 424, An Act Concerning Prohibiting The Mandatory Opening of Retail Stores on Certain Holidays Pursuant to Rental Contracts, died in the General Law Committee. The following year, the General Law Committee favorably reported HB 7283, containing identical language. That bill died in the Judiciary Committee.

Supporters of the bills, notably the Connecticut Jewelers Association, testified that they would allow operators of small shopping mall stores to observe particular holidays without being penalized under the terms of their lease or jeopardizing their tenancy. Jewelry store owner Bruce McDermott testified that mall leases required stores to remain open nearly every day of the year. "If you question those hours," he said, "there's no discussion (about renting space). It ends right there. " McDermott said requiring stores to open on various holidays demeaned American heritage and cultural values (General Law Committee PH 2/28/89).

But shopping mall representatives said consumers, particularly families where both husband and wife work, have limited time to shop. They expect malls to be open most days of the year, and quickly lose confidence in malls where stores close unexpectedly (General Law Committee PH 2/28/89).

Grace Nome, representing the Connecticut Food Service Administration, suggested requiring retail stores to close on certain holidays, including Christmas, New Year's Day and July Fourth. She said small store owners could then take the day off without worrying about the competition (General Law Committee PH 3/8/88).

Several witnesses testified that CGS § 53-303g, re-codified in 1997 as CGS § 47a-4b, already addressed the problem of shopping mall leases. That law voids provisions of commercial leases, agreed to on or after October 1, 1979, that require lessees to open for business seven days a week or on any specified day of the week.

Attorney John King, representing the International Council of Shopping Centers, testified that CGS § 53-303g was broader than HB 7283, but said both § 53-303g and the bill were probably unconstitutional. King said they interfered with conduct between two voluntary contracting parties, and did not advance the legitimate state interest of promoting the public health, safety, or welfare. He said they would likely fail the "rational connection" test set out in Caldor's (General Law Committee PH 2/28/89).

PF: eh