Category Archives: Family Medical Leave

Virginia HB 1921: A Legislative Push for Universal Paid Sick Leave

Posted on by

Virginia came close to dramatically expanding paid sick leave protections in 2025, but House Bill 1921 ultimately fell victim to a gubernatorial veto that the legislature couldn’t override. The failed legislation highlights an ongoing debate in the Commonwealth about worker protections versus business flexibility.

The bill proposed extending paid sick leave to virtually all Virginia employees, building on a modest 2021 law that covered only home health workers. Under HB 1921, workers would have accrued one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked, capped at forty hours annually, with the ability to carry unused time into the next year. Sponsors estimated the change would have benefited approximately 1.2 million Virginians who currently lack any paid time off. The legislation passed both chambers along partisan lines before landing on Governor Glenn Youngkin’s desk in March 2025.

Supporters framed paid sick leave as both a public health necessity and an economic investment. They argued that workers shouldn’t have to choose between their health and their paycheck, pointing to research showing that paid leave reduces disease transmission, lowers employee turnover, and improves long-term productivity. Advocates emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed how lack of paid leave disproportionately harms low-income workers and creates preventable public health risks. They also noted that neighboring Maryland and the District of Columbia already have similar protections, and that Virginia’s forty-hour cap represented a modest requirement unlikely to burden responsible employers.

Opponents, particularly business organizations, raised concerns about imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate on Virginia’s diverse economy. They warned that requiring all employers to provide paid sick leave could create significant administrative and financial burdens, especially for small businesses operating on thin margins or still recovering from pandemic disruptions. Critics argued the mandate might lead employers to reduce hours, delay hiring, or even lay off workers to offset increased labor costs. Some framed the issue philosophically, contending that employment benefits should remain a matter of private negotiation rather than government mandate.

Governor Youngkin vetoed HB 1921 in March 2025, characterizing it as an inflexible statewide mandate that failed to account for Virginia’s varied business landscape. He argued the bill risked discouraging job creation and represented unnecessary government intrusion into private employment relationships. The House sustained the veto on April 2, 2025, leaving Virginia’s limited 2021 law intact. However, the close legislative votes suggest significant appetite for reform. Legislative observers expect the issue to resurface, possibly in modified form during the 2026 session. Future versions might include exemptions for very small employers, phased implementation timelines, or tax incentives to offset compliance costs—adjustments designed to address economic concerns while advancing worker protections.

D. Scott Gordon, Richmond Employment Lawyer

dsgordonlaw.com

New Virginia Law Permits Leave for Organ and Bone Marrow Donors

Posted on by

Beginning July 1, 2023, Virginia Law will include a new provision for employee leave for the purpose of organ or bone marrow donation. Pending Va. Code Section 40.1-33.8 allows for up to 60 days of unpaid business leave for employees for the purpose of organ donation and up to 30 days of unpaid leave for the purpose of bone marrow donation. However, not every employee will qualify. The new statute is structured similarly to the qualifying elements of FMLA leave. An eligible employee must have been employed for 12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12 months. Also, qualifying employers only include those with 50 or more employees.

Like the FMLA, during qualifying periods of leave, the employer must consider the employee as continuously employed and must reinstate the employee to the same or equivalent position upon their timely return. Retaliation is specifically prohibited for exercising these rights, but the statute does not contain an express provision for an individual cause of action. As structured, violations can be asserted to the Commissioner or the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry within 1 year. VDOLI is then responsible for investigating the claim and if warranted, issuing a notice of any founded violation, which primarily would include civil penalties.

Does the FMLA Provide for a”Light Duty” Return to Work?

Posted on by

The Seventh Circuit recently addressed the interplay of FMLA and “light duty” restrictions in James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago (7th Cir., 2013).   In James, the plaintiff suffered from a visual condition and subsequent eye injury that prompted surgery and an associated request for Family Medical Leave (FMLA).   After his 12 weeks of FMLA expired, the employee requested to return to work in a light duty capacity that would eliminate some essential functions of his position.  When the employer could not accommodate his request, the employee nonetheless remained on leave based upon the terms of his union’s collective bargaining agreement.  Ultimately, the employee returned to work but still sued under the FMLA, contending that the employer failed to promptly reinstate him in accordance with his physician’s restrictions.

At the conclusion of an FMLA period, the FMLA requires that an employer reinstate the employee to his prior position or “an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the FMLA does not require an employer to return an employee to his position if that employee cannot perform an essential function of the job. 29 C.F.R. § 825.214(b).  As otherwise stated, there is no such thing as obligatory light duty under the FMLA.   (Note, other laws such as workers’ compensation and ADA statutes may impose different light duty obligations depending on the facts of each individual case.)