CT Gen Stat § 52-571b (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 52 - Civil Actions|Chapter 925 - Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses|Section 52-571b - Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person's exercise of religion.

 (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term “granting” does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.(f) For the purposes of this section, “state or any political subdivision of the state” includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.(P.A. 93-252.)Religious society was owner of property that was subject to zoning appeal and therefore individual member of society lacked standing under section because member's claim was derivative of society's claim; religious society has standing to bring action under section in order to preserve its rights under Art. I, Sec. 3 of Connecticut Constitution; the terms “burden” and “exercise of religion” are not plain and unambiguous in this land use case, and do not provide broader protection than under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, and the court did not believe that legislature intended that land use decision regarding proposed construction of a place of worship would raise religious exercise issues and thus be subject to strict scrutiny under statute. 285 C. 381. Subsec. (d) does not purport to confer on religious institutions immunity from employment discrimination actions but, rather, operates as rule of construction for whole section, as further evidenced by dissimilarity between its language and language of statutes that do confer immunity. 329 C. 684.Plaintiff could not prevail on claim that, pursuant to Subsec. (b), antidiscrimination statutes should be enforced against religious institution upon showing of compelling state interest; although Subsecs. (a) and (b) authorize state to burden “exercise” of a person's religion upon showing of compelling state interest, Subsec. (d) expressly precludes state from burdening “any religious belief”, and because internal governance of religious institution, including employment of ministers and clergy, is a protected religious belief of the institution, commission correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction. 98 CA 646.Plaintiff's claim re injuries she suffered while voluntarily participating in church healing ritual service are based on religious exercise and not religious belief, and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny under Subsecs. (a) and (b); plaintiff cannot prevail under “public safety exception” of Art. I, Sec. 3 of Connecticut Constitution. 52 CS 218; judgment affirmed, see 134 CA 459.