[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6665809,"mediaKeyId","2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320","parentId",2344507,"title","Sponsor seeks to extend non‑compete ban to advanced practice registered nurses to support care access","audioSeconds",590,"startMs",5579000,"endMs",6169000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320&start=5579&end=6169","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320/thumbnail_5579000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6665809/New-Hampshire/Sponsor-seeks-to-extend-noncompete-ban-to-advanced-practice-registered-nurses-to-support-care-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665809-69e8090acbeed297dd2134ff036c9335/orig.mp4?Expires=1771122120&Signature=TIudAM1Ns5vEbeIf4ajTRQfZMuugHrUn9k12fhlIOs6XdWXAx4oskGsEb0olp4sq4QXZyvBYxgUKf3Rc3VJDPCfIzLH4bEOeHDD4MzfO-WhToAwlaYdN5w9gGSg11h7-DiFX~37nnHShg13j2KJPDKr66H4yJRuJrTwN7O11RkrMRQhUq5iTiAZXojDzg7CimJEzcA831pI2lZS73f~XzEz7~tJChoif-R0U4AX77TyK8DQX084Bu6hNGNQdZACZURTm~KgUEkSSuyLZNHwWt2rjljqBi3DhabY7aXIoc73w1cGqPxnSvimXzE9zWPLBUMDsnQsrpFH9HUIm4BjeCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-18T18:59:50.843Z","article","Senate Bill 172 would amend the Nurse Practice Act (RSA 326‑B) to make non‑compete provisions unenforceable for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), sponsor Sen. Suzanne Prentiss and nurse practitioners told the Senate Commerce Committee.

Prentiss said the current statute makes non‑compete clauses unenforceable for nurses, but the statutory language does not clearly cover APRNs — clinicians who hold both an RN license and an APRN license and who provide primary and specialty care as nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists, certified nurse‑midwives and clinical nurse specialists. She said clarifying the statute would remove ambiguity and enable APRNs to change employers or practice locations without contractual restraint, helping to address primary‑care shortages.

Kim Mohan, executive director of the New Hampshire Nurse Practitioner Association, explained that APRNs are licensed under an APRN credential and that statutory language in the Nurse Practice Act currently leaves a gap that can create uncertainty about which license governs the enforceability of non‑compete clauses. Mohan said the bill would bring APRNs into parity with registered nurses and cover all advanced practice licenses under one clear statutory rule.

Supporters argued that non‑compete clauses can limit mobility and reduce access to care, particularly in regions with primary‑care shortages; witnesses cited local examples where nursing staffing shortages required extensive use of traveling staff. Brian Ciracello, a former county commissioner who managed care contracts, said non‑competes hindered hiring in his experience and supported removing restraints that prevent local employers from retaining clinicians.

Committee members asked clarifying questions. Mohan said the bill is largely housekeeping to close an ambiguity rather than a substantive expansion of rights; the board of nursing had been unable to confirm coverage for APRNs under the current non‑compete language, motivating the clarifying change. No amendments or votes were recorded at the hearing.

Sponsor and supporters asked the committee to advance the bill to ensure APRNs have the same protection from non‑compete provisions that registered nurses already enjoy.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Commerce (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 172 would clarify that non‑compete provisions are unenforceable for advanced practice registered nurses, supporters told the Senate Commerce Committee.","taxTitle","Commerce, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29504,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665819,"E‑Verify bill draws divided business and chamber concerns; Labor Department neutral but flags enforcement steps",1268,1975000,3243000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320&start=1975&end=3243","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320/thumbnail_1975000.jpg","/articles/6665819/New-Hampshire/EVerify-bill-draws-divided-business-and-chamber-concerns-Labor-Department-neutral-but-flags-enforcement-steps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665819-a1d3411335fbe0afdd8812dec265f724/orig.mp4?Expires=1771122120&Signature=O9RTmHtjDm~KajfygsznrJm~MhpuEBy8KF9pHTmPc9ngcvN3F1ytAUnQVlB8rLmVXFBNZ93Q0Ymz9H2J0x6sQbcscVLQ8nYEdN-7STl3w0hNrQBDX~kGq9ptqBL-En7bvD9iBhX~oeuFhoYuJk3qb062M6xIfO0mcCLgkE0O05-TAHqctv1xUP7mqR3xRlkhJtKe42r5uBwzUwiim~kv7EI4kpiUtIJFPgSxMqdoftPbvO6Zo62SHfcUJGOzaTwFuOsc0OKCLN5qyG-WpJOhs0oZYhsqlGoxUdh6qyC6cJwnPgvNSwbMcUfZCPm9tahPtQ~cFk5ZVtYJiI2xKA7L2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 177 would require New Hampshire employers with more than 25 employees to use the federal E‑Verify system to confirm work authorization for new hires, a legislative aide and several witnesses told the Senate Commerce Committee.

Joshua Shower, legislative aide for the bill sponsor, said E‑Verify compares employer I‑9 information with Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records and alerts employers to mismatches; state mandates for E‑Verify exist in about two dozen states. Rep. Pam Brown, a co‑sponsor, said supporters regard the system as a sensible tool to reduce hiring of unauthorized workers and cited third‑party summaries describing how E‑Verify matches documents and deters document fraud.

The Department of Labor testified as neutral. General Counsel John Gerrigan and Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert noted the department currently audits employers for I‑9 compliance and would still need to check employer records for proof of verification. They told the committee the department could enforce civil penalties included in the bill, but noted RSA 273:11(a) generally requires warning and correction periods before penalties unless a statute expressly exempts the enforcement from that umbrella; the bill as drafted does not exempt its penalties from that warning procedure. Albert also said the department frequently assesses civil penalties for I‑9 recordkeeping violations and that the department’s existing inspection and hearings infrastructure could likely handle related cases but that the total additional workload and costs are uncertain.

Business witnesses opposed the mandate. Allison Milioto of Blue Lion said many small employers already complete paper I‑9s and that requiring E‑Verify would add administrative steps, security and breach risks, and potential hiring delays. She also argued that employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers are unlikely to be deterred by a state requirement. Peggy Gilmore of the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce said the Chamber supports employer choice rather than a state mandate.

Witnesses also pointed out limitations of E‑Verify: it verifies that the identity information entered into the system matches federal records, but it cannot confirm that the person physically presenting documents is the same individual tied to those records. Blue Lion and other witnesses gave examples of shared Social Security numbers or identity‑document misuse that can allow unauthorized workers to pass verification.

Committee members questioned enforcement, whether E‑Verify would reduce current I‑9 violations, and potential administrative costs for the Department of Labor. The Department said it would collect records demonstrating use of E‑Verify (for example, system printouts) during audits but could not predict whether the mandate would reduce violations. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.","Senate Bill 177 would require employers with more than 25 employees to use E‑Verify to confirm new hires’ work authorization, testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee said.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665828,"Bill would require employers to notify workers on long-term comp about potential repayment obligations",675,246000,921000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320&start=246&end=921","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320/thumbnail_246000.jpg","/articles/6665828/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-require-employers-to-notify-workers-on-long-term-comp-about-potential-repayment-obligations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665828-b2eb85f846843235bbdb24bd6cda0dac/orig.mp4?Expires=1771122120&Signature=XhnUe6OKNX4CmbTR1qqHZ5aF8HkpodoIErT6X4Atkfxe9--KCfF3JURoF0W-2XEkZeaOELXE4~z7KakFEk65DmG2leXru8Dr7-E031-FY5wPakaCLS3ryPpRKdVM3fJBCE8WWdaBqPAbXZT9Nb0LCxPzX3CgpSF4NvBlWCfPuZ6Wuw~Hu8O5kYQiZEnEYh062EYlw06WlsURvbiVFE~cUkE7GQ26EIYpKxZZK4h-36Ye0YgbupLSXIMq3d-cFzPWWHdnqao5s2RXOAgzgEywzwG1P0ANEGkjSmYFTENXSa2X9ORRXzp~AGD42WkZQp1i8p2lxQWHFgZ4npsEBFGusA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 169 would require employers who provide supplemental pay to workers receiving workers' compensation benefits to notify those employees of anticipated repayment obligations and repayment methods, supporters said at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.

The measure, introduced by Sen. Cindy Rosenwald, aims to reduce “surprise” debts owed by employees who receive both employer-paid salary continuation and indemnity payments from workers' compensation insurers. Rosenwald said the bill would not shift costs from employees to employers; it would require routine, transparent communication so workers can plan for amounts they may later be asked to reimburse.

Rosenwald said workers' compensation benefits in New Hampshire are governed by RSA 281-A and usually replace roughly 60% of regular wages. She and firefighter union representatives described situations where employers had continued salary and benefits while a claim was pending, then later sought reimbursement from the employee when indemnity payments were approved. Brian Rill, president of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire, said the bill would require notice within 30 days of a long-term injury and then every 30 days thereafter, or earlier if the employer prefers, and would not change the employee's ultimate obligation to reimburse any duplicated pay.

The New Hampshire Department of Labor said it is neutral on the bill and flagged technical issues for the committee. Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert and General Counsel John Gerrigan told the committee that the bill's notice requirements would apply to “supplemental pay,” a term not defined in RSA 281-A. The department said supplemental pay could include salary continuation or payments that make up the difference between workers' compensation indemnity and an employee's average weekly wage. The department noted that if such payments are treated as wages they are subject to RSA 275 (wage and hour laws), including frequent withholding notices and recordkeeping requirements. Albert said existing wage-notice obligations under RSA 275, particularly RSA 275:49, require employers to give withholding notices every pay period and to retain pay records for a defined time, which could be more frequent than the 30-day notice in the bill.

When asked about enforcement, Albert said employers who fail to provide required wage notices under RSA 275 may be subject to civil penalties. Committee members did not take action on the bill at the hearing; the sponsor and supporters asked the committee to look favorably on the proposal.

The bill would not itself change who ultimately owes duplicated pay; supporters said it only requires earlier and repeated written notice so employees are aware of anticipated obligations and repayment options. Advocates used an anecdote from Portsmouth where an employee was informed after returning to work that they owed their employer more than $18,000. Rosenwald and witnesses said the purpose is transparency so workers can plan rather than be surprised.

Supporters included the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire; the Department of Labor testified as neutral and offered technical clarifications. No formal vote or amendment was recorded during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing and moved on to its next item.

The sponsor and Department of Labor officials agreed to work with the committee on technical language clarifying which forms of employer payments are covered and how the bill interacts with existing wage-notice and recordkeeping statutes.","Senate Bill 169 would require employers who provide supplemental pay to workers on long-term workers' compensation to notify those employees of anticipated repayment obligations and repayment options.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665814,"Senate hearing on raising state minimum wage to $15 draws testimony from workers, faith leaders and employers",2331,3265000,5596000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320&start=3265&end=5596","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320/thumbnail_3265000.jpg","/articles/6665814/New-Hampshire/Senate-hearing-on-raising-state-minimum-wage-to-15-draws-testimony-from-workers-faith-leaders-and-employers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665814-babdf8f9ed69e9e2d6d206de650925a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771122120&Signature=R-GESioMQg04cLNHpLhaA45U6lQYUgZ6uBwfTUTGO3DULr0Xpq2xWdeSfSKtmXtOA-H35YTyDyxsq1rLXMLiatfVLtRxS6Gelu8cMHpIi-qQxJFCz0~AlwTBrJTb9RCA7Kgx6VEvT0AsfFr7NbY2xP~rDq68EvMHCUZ97SuuOktx-zdVExw55moNvo3SE9t3J~9DTIjeZHL~1wLO3pXbjfrvRKGz9w2VFS5MMgABU2vJ2~2DeAWmeLjMEKOlgVqsrPTsHzS33a4U4E4jlOB-8GZxhyo5i5OSO7h0tAyR1Ek7NvdKRKSrj0zlmqqq1cjRpYnuD6VtnsZ3Eovn1H0~gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 176 would establish a state minimum wage that rises from the federal default to $12 an hour on Sept. 1, 2025, and to $15 an hour on July 1, 2026, sponsor Sen. Deborah Ochsler told the Senate Commerce Committee.

Ochsler argued that New Hampshire’s cost of living and proximity to neighboring states with higher minimums make a state standard necessary to retain workers and reduce reliance on public assistance. Supporters who testified included David Trumbull, faith and community advocates such as Reverend Gail Kinney and Claudia Estelle from the New Hampshire Conference of the United Church of Christ, and members of local labor and economic‑justice groups. They cited national and state studies showing thousands of New Hampshire workers earn less than $15 and said higher wages would reduce food insecurity, turnover and reliance on assistance.

Witnesses described specific research and local data: proponents cited a report estimating roughly 30,000 New Hampshire workers would benefit, noted that women make up a substantial share of low‑wage workers in sectors like childcare and eldercare, and said raising wages can increase local consumer spending and support workforce retention.

Opponents and neutral witnesses raised concerns. Allison Milioto of Blue Lion said New Hampshire’s competitiveness must be considered — neighboring states have higher minimum wages but also state income taxes, and the state’s low unemployment rate (about 2.6% at the time of testimony) makes labor markets tight. She argued a one‑size‑fits‑all approach could raise costs in sectors such as childcare and may shift who is eligible for entry jobs. Milioto took a neutral position on the bill but urged that the increase be considered as part of broader policy solutions.

Sen. Merchant, an employer, said his lowest‑paid worker makes $16.50 an hour; other lawmakers questioned whether many workers currently earn $7.25. Supporters replied that hundreds of thousands of workers statewide earn under the proposed thresholds and that the increase would lift many out of poverty while reducing turnover. Witnesses also pointed to research suggesting higher minimum wages have been associated with increased job and income growth in some comparisons.

The hearing included discussion of county, regional and sectoral effects and competing views about market forces versus statutory floors. No committee action was recorded at the hearing. The sponsor asked the committee to recommend the bill ought to pass; the committee closed the hearing and planned executive sessions in March.","Senate Bill 176 would raise New Hampshire's minimum wage to $12 on Sept. 1, 2025, and to $15 on July 1, 2026, supporters told the Senate Commerce Committee.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665823,"Committee hears bill to clarify pay rules for remote work; business groups back change, Department of Labor neutral",721,1026000,1747000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320&start=1026&end=1747","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2344507-f6c855322a62eba3ced2e56facc66320/thumbnail_1026000.jpg","/articles/6665823/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-bill-to-clarify-pay-rules-for-remote-work-business-groups-back-change-Department-of-Labor-neutral","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665823-42688bd09d69ba0fbab7218bd0a9ee1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771122120&Signature=R7O7adkM7XZqaKbWlncK4Vr6Cp7fJ5iX5dfWsp97poqxvpOWjwHHlT8wzrOKKCA3wmzqmDy8S7CnyI9tIuEx4XtMAI5Y6zIs1WOpqD-WDKx4LfkUxOTKk2aak7Z0OrV4bBbFFvzw6n1Njy99JIEgEHxDWVd59TqCE2EfeAy1apLgbI1sv5t0sl10FH~ppIizWYNbzESi2GbhMOeeR9m7kQTk~kfX4irOLAt-oW6tNId~zhXU92r1z5HJAJNIYHQMhkGeaQyYPcAjaVXgSO~XM5ebhbF1ik96HhosmexFuYGBBk0sOEBjaP7Yh3xXokJPfTWaejJ0rVv1c7qqatuqhw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 171 would amend RSA 275:43‑a to clarify how New Hampshire's required-pay and reporting-time rules apply to remote work, sponsors and witnesses told the Senate Commerce Committee.

Sponsor Sen. Denise Ricciardi said the measure would modernize labor law by exempting remote work from certain reporting-time pay requirements that were written with in-person work in mind. She and business witnesses said the change would reduce uncertainty and prevent unintended two‑hour minimum-pay obligations for brief remote tasks such as answering an email from home.

Allison Milioto, cofounder of Blue Lion, an HR consulting firm, testified in support and described repeated shifts in Department of Labor interpretation that have made compliance difficult for employers. She said employers and HR professionals need consistent, documented guidance so remote, hybrid, and brief off‑hours tasks are treated predictably. Mike Summers, representing the New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association, said the original two‑hour rule historically protected employees who had incurred travel or other costs to report in person; the bill would preserve that protection for in‑person situations while exempting true remote work that does not involve such travel costs.

The Department of Labor testified as neutral. General Counsel John Gerrigan and Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert told the committee they are neutral but recommended clarifying the bill's language on “physical location.” Gerrigan explained that current state and federal laws generally treat the place where work is performed as the worker's location and that confusion could arise where employees perform work at client sites, in the field, or other off‑site locations. The Department said clearer statutory language about what counts as an employer's physical location would help both enforcement and employer compliance.

Blue Lion and other employer witnesses also raised administrative concerns: even if E‑Verify or similar systems are free, they require extra administrative steps; similarly, Milioto argued employers who intend to hire unauthorized workers are unlikely to be deterred by technology. (Witnesses made this point in a separate bill discussion about E‑Verify; it was raised here in the broader discussion of wage administration.)

Committee members asked questions about real‑world effects. Senator McHugh asked whether the rule would affect employees who briefly check email from home; witnesses said that brief work should be paid for the actual time worked, but the bill would prevent applying a two‑hour minimum when no travel or commute was involved. There was no committee action or vote recorded during the hearing; the Department of Labor offered to help clarify language if the committee moves the bill forward.

Supporters asked the committee to adopt the modernization to reflect post‑pandemic work patterns; the Department urged specific statutory definitions to avoid enforcement confusion.","Senate Bill 171 would clarify that employees working remotely are exempt from certain reporting‑time pay requirements. Supporters including HR consultants and restaurant groups said the bill reflects modern work; the Department of Labor said it is neutral and cautioned that 'physical location' should be defined for enforcement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sponsor seeks to extend non‑compete ban to advanced practice registered nurses to support care access

E‑Verify bill draws divided business and chamber concerns; Labor Department neutral but flags enforcement steps

Bill would require employers to notify workers on long-term comp about potential repayment obligations

Senate hearing on raising state minimum wage to $15 draws testimony from workers, faith leaders and employers

Committee hears bill to clarify pay rules for remote work; business groups back change, Department of Labor neutral