At a Glance
- States with Democratic legislative "trifectas" have introduced a host of labor and employment bills that run contrary to policies advanced by the new administration.
- Legislation topics include labor protections, Covid policies, immigration enforcement and discrimination, among others.
In the wake of Trump administration executive orders and regulatory actions, Democratic-led states across the nation have taken bold steps to counteract policies they view as regressive. There are 17 states that are led by both a Democratic governor and Democratic majority of the state legislature. These states are leading the way in proposing a new wave of state legislation aimed to advance and protect policies in areas such as new labor protections, Covid, immigration protections and other social justice matters. This article explores how these legislative efforts reflect a broader trend of state-level policy initiatives and the highlights that stand out.
The Rise of Bans on Mandatory Employer Meetings
This legislative session, several states have proposed bans on mandatory, employer-sponsored meetings (so-called "captive audience" meeting). Although labor has supported such bans in states like Connecticut, New York, Minnesota and California over the last several years, this trend is on the increase in order to counterbalance what is perceived as a pro-employer agenda by the federal administration. Delaware has proposed HB84, which would prohibit employers from requiring employees to participate in mandatory meetings or communications concerning religious or political matters. Maryland has proposed HB233/SB576, which would prohibit employers from taking certain actions against an employee for declining to attend or participate in employer-sponsored meetings during which the employer communicates its opinion regarding religious or political matters. Massachusetts has proposed SB1078/HB1653, which has virtually the same language as the prior two bills. New Mexico has proposed HB84, which would prohibit an employer from taking adverse action against an employee for refusing to attend employer-sponsored meetings that communicate political matters. And lastly, Rhode Island has proposed HB5506, which has nearly identical language to the other captive audience bills. In these states, the legislatures are attempting to remove a key tool for employers' ability to communicate their stance on unionization. This is a key preemption issue under the National Labor Relations Act, so they are sure to be legally challenged. These bills would also result in requirements for updating policies, ensuring compliance, and potentially facing a multitude of legal challenges for any violations.
Striking with Security
It's not just a California thing, but it started there. In years past there have been many efforts to pay workers for unemployment while they were on strike. In 2023, Senate 799 proposed granting unemployment benefits to California workers on strike for more than two weeks. And, in 2024, another attempt to provide unemployment benefits to striking workers ultimately failed in the Assembly Insurance Committee. Although these efforts failed mainly due to California's budget woes and the burden already on the state's Unemployment Insurance Program, this effort is now gaining traction nationwide.
There are now variations of bill proposals across these states to allow unemployment insurance payments or some other benefit to striking workers: Connecticut (HB6904), Delaware (SB26), Illinois (HB2565), Massachusetts (SB1319), New York (AB2654), Oregon (HB3434), Rhode Island (5680) and Washington (SB5041). These bills, collectively, cover everything from unemployment payments after a 14-day strike to varying definitions of a "labor dispute."
Providing financial support to striking workers could incentivize more frequent and prolonged strikes, as workers would face less economic pressure to return to work, thereby disrupting business operations. This legislative trend is surely to be watched by state unemployment agencies, which have to potentially fund a new wave of claims, and the business community alike.
Blue States Push Back on Covid Vaccine Mandates and Allow Masking Protections
Several states are pushing legislation to directly handle the controversial vaccine mandate requirements that have popped up either in the public or private sector and have led to litigation for the last four years. These new legislative proposals can be seen as a potential political strategy to appeal to a broader base, including moderate and independent voters. And, there are economic considerations. Mandates can impact businesses and the economy; thus, by banning mandates, states are aiming to support economic stability and minimize public constitutional debates over individual freedoms.
In Illinois, HB2597 would create the COVID-19 Religious Exemption Act, prohibiting discrimination against any person because of such person's refusal to obtain, receive, or accept a COVID-19 vaccination contrary to their belief. Illinois is also proposing HB2600, which would create the COVID-19 Vaccination Employer Mandate Prohibition Act, prohibiting an employer from creating a mandatory COVID-19 workplace vaccination program. In Massachusetts, HB2431 would prohibit businesses from requiring proof of a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment. A similar law was proposed in Maine (LD871), which would even apply to health care facility employees. Likewise, in New York a pending bill (AB3807) would prohibit requiring a COVID-19 vaccination for employment, limit civil liability of employers for the spread of COVID-19, and enact a vaccine bill of rights to prohibit private businesses from requiring "experimental medication." Lastly, Oregon (SB383) would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on vaccination status and Rhode Island (HB5856) would prohibit employers from requiring vaccines without also allowing for individual exemptions.
In keeping with the theme of individual liberties, several states are proposing protections for those who choose to wear masks or other personal protective equipment. In California (AB596), Illinois (HB3853) and Massachusetts (HB1981), there would be new prohibitions against employers' prohibiting their employees from wearing wear masks and would provide anti-discrimination protections for those choosing to wear personal protective equipment.
State Responses to Immigration Enforcement: Regulating the Employer
Blue states across the United States are responding to increased immigration enforcement activity from the federal administration by proposing bills that limit employers' cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, limit certain data collected or distributed and regulates how the employees are treated in the workplace.
In California, bills are pending that would prohibit the sharing of immigration status of any student on a K-12 school or college campus (SB48/SB98), as well as a new proposal that would prohibit law enforcement from assisting an ICE action if it takes place within a one-mile radius of a daycare, religious institution, place of worship, hospital or medical office (AB421).
In Maryland, HB1476 would prohibit employers from disclosing (or threatening to disclose) an employee's immigration status to a public body for the purpose of concealing violations related to labor, benefits, or tax laws. In Illinois, there are legislative proposals (SB1666, SB1858) to prevent discrimination based on citizenship status and to prohibit employers' collecting or distributing citizenship-related records. Illinois has also proposed that state contractors with access to criminal justice data must certify that they will not share the data with immigration authorities.
A bill in Oregon would protect employees from discrimination based on their immigration status (SB1119)., Interestingly, another Oregon bill states that even if an individually is not lawfully in the United States they would still be able to provide occupational or professional services (HB3830). Rhode Island has proposed a bill (SB537) that would prevent immigration officials' access to healthcare facilities without a judicial warrant (i.e., a warrant signed by a judge, not an agency's administrative law judge.) Lastly, Washington has proposed SB5104, which would prevent "coercion" of employees based on their immigration status. It remains to be seen which enforcement authorities would implement and oversee these bills should they become law. These bills implicate possible notification requirements, access to facilities, data privacy of employee information, and employer policy updates and training requirements regarding citizenship or immigration-related inquiries.
As Democratic states continue to consider legislation designed to counteract the policies of the Trump administration, they are setting a precedent for state-level control over the issues that matter most to them. The actions of these states serve as a powerful reminder of the influence of local governance over issues of nationwide importance. Compliance in this environment is a business challenge as management must navigate a complex, and evolving-in-real-time regulatory landscape. To ensure compliance and maintain positive employee relations, it is crucial for employers to stay informed about new legal proposals and consider adapting their policies accordingly. As the political landscape evolves, proactive compliance strategies will be essential for business success and stability.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
