[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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],{"_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",6053930,"mediaKeyId","3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839","parentId",3342545,"title","Senate committee pauses HB 2957A after debate over BOLI right-to-sue timing and a proposed compromise","audioSeconds",3507,"startMs",51000,"endMs",3558000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839&start=51&end=3558","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839/thumbnail_51000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6053930/Oregon/Senate-committee-pauses-HB-2957A-after-debate-over-BOLI-right-to-sue-timing-and-a-proposed-compromise","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6053930-438678350d9671f67de3cf8976325017/orig.mp4?Expires=1772885096&Signature=RkH50xbPOw2-X5EFkFOtGs68qsenuUkDIMio~p0QlNBvq9U1SYcIAoBTr0fS3RFmMVStbhAvXdx3hLvLUF4DF44W7EUrqQ1s3eB9X-8inMozHPB6E7wNcFzPsoCSFKkcNP8vA2RHjgN3eB~KWxTRRQZmvrYgxwey7wSq8FDolza1m8ljYsstvOR4q~jkfTgIQUs1VANbTNXAUnG02cV0eoTBZYoSRePOfUdkpxA4QUmoeBa7ES9Wuel608-i~U0F1ejKxUhmmxSZjuepOThFgE87JOZU97098YFILwg~Gv5iZ3xVXnj34zeopfZq6KB3NUrQhwIbMwPqsmwpkki1Zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon Legislature","date","2025-05-15T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business held multiple public hearings on House Bill 2957A on May 15, 2025, and carried the bill over to the committee's next meeting while staff draft a compromise amendment.

The bill would change how BOLI right-to-sue letters interact with civil filing deadlines. Proponents said the measure would preserve low-wage workers’ ability to find counsel and file suit, while business groups warned it could extend liability and legal uncertainty for employers.

Kate Sussman, legal director at Northwest Workers’ Justice Project, told the committee that low-wage workers often struggle to find attorneys after receiving a BOLI notice. “If you have 5 years to file, you have 5 years to file,” Sussman said, arguing the current interplay between BOLI letters and civil statutes of limitations can unfairly shorten the practical time a worker has to sue. Sussman described cases in which workers received a BOLI closure letter with only weeks remaining to file in court and said that reality disincentivizes attorneys from taking such matters.

Opponents including Jenny Dressler of the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Paloma Sparks of Oregon Business and Industry, and JL Wilson of the Oregon State Chamber of Commerce said removing the 90-day right-to-sue notice in some circumstances could expose employers to prolonged legal uncertainty. “That 90-day notice gives us a reasonable time limit for what our liability could potentially be,” Dressler said, adding that defending a suit through trial can cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for family-owned farms.

Disability Rights Oregon's Ben Gerwitz urged support for the bill on equity grounds, saying people with disabilities often take longer to navigate communication and find counsel and therefore would benefit from extended timelines.

Committee members questioned how the bill's timelines would work in practice. Jessica Santiago, senior deputy legislative counsel, explained an amendment under consideration would tighten timelines in certain cases by requiring that, when BOLI issues a finding of insufficient evidence and one year or less remains on the civil statute of limitations, the complainant must file within the earlier of one year from the notice or the remaining statutory period. Josh Nasby of the Bureau of Labor and Industries told the committee that BOLI has dismissed about 337 complaints during a triage process instituted because of resource constraints, meaning those complainants received a 90-day notice without a full investigation.

Vice Chair Bonham described a drafting approach the committee was exploring: restore a full five-year statute of limitations for complainants whose BOLI cases were dismissed for lack of resources or where BOLI could not complete an investigation, while retaining a one-year filing window for cases in which BOLI completed an investigation and issued a finding of no substantial evidence. \"Those people would have had 5 years statute of limitation,\" Bonham said during the hearing when summarizing the proposed compromise.

No final action was taken. The committee closed the public hearing and set the item to be carried over to next Tuesday so staff can draft the amendment lawmakers discussed and so stakeholders can review the language.

The debate centered on three discrete outcomes the committee distinguished throughout the hearing: (1) cases where BOLI completes an investigation and issues a finding (those would trigger a shortened filing window under the discussed compromise), (2) cases BOLI dismisses during triage for lack of resources (stakeholders sought restoration of the full statutory filing period), and (3) complaints never filed with BOLI (which remain governed by the underlying civil statute of limitations).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Labor and Business 05/15/2025 8:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business held multiple public hearings on House Bill 2957A on May 15, 2025, and carried the bill over to the committee's next meeting while staff draft a compromise amendment.","taxTitle","Labor and Business, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17989,"location","Oregon","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},6053916,"Committee hears bill to require insurers to explain renewal premium increases to consumers",359,3101000,3460000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839&start=3101&end=3460","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839/thumbnail_3101000.jpg","/articles/6053916/Oregon/Committee-hears-bill-to-require-insurers-to-explain-renewal-premium-increases-to-consumers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6053916-bcf5d9babc8c929ef63c001b2c564769/orig.mp4?Expires=1772885096&Signature=kzHDl~DlMPTwxuIFfTInI19QRSNGQPvr87KM0AImfKWx~JxjJq3gKqooUS2cS052vfGpmcVk5cTCYHJN9h0HvZAEAvBqfdRsWsS2aeK89imkVfV0-107iP8k8M0PS8SzRiljSqCOcm6ZcGBZexS3BB8klEqMnAiOJXYVag5SzhZoCcpCfq-5b4l99JkuCABgAeLPBmTAS00P2RWuOxK05sxEWZ3TZt63r2YE7oLGusjW54Z3ZC9QgMEbqj3pyNky2g~USZEAW8dN4AiHZ0sQG2yEkb8q-G9UpJykeYgWH8Y0OlvEL5z6N9xQBH5AeBNOZgr5cV5RSIMD-tf~l1rHwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business held a public hearing on House Bill 2563A on May 15, 2025, to consider a measure requiring insurers to give consumers a clear, written explanation for any premium increase at policy renewal upon request.

Alex Chang, deputy administrator for the Division of Financial Regulation, said HB 2563A responds to frequent consumer complaints that insurers provide inadequate explanation for rate increases. “There’s no current provision in the insurance code that requires an explanation of why,” Chang said, and the department shared an example renewal notice that listed only a generic factor such as “driving record” without specifics.

Jesse O’Brien, policy manager with the Division of Financial Regulation, told the committee the bill applies to personal auto and homeowners policies and to renewals on or after Sept. 1, 2026. On written request, an insurer would have 20 days to respond with a notice listing up to four factors that significantly contributed to the premium increase. The bill requires a consumer-friendly request process and authorizes rulemaking to define factors and data collection. O’Brien said the current amended bill is the product of extended negotiation with insurers and producers and that no organized opposition was known at the time of the hearing.

Kenton Bridal, president of the Northwest Insurance Council, said the industry appreciates the department’s work and confirmed the council’s neutral position, noting the need for a robust rulemaking process to clarify implementation.

The committee closed the public hearing. Stakeholders indicated they expect rulemaking to flesh out definitions, limits, exemptions and the operational process for requests and responses.","The Senate committee heard testimony on House Bill 2563A, which would require insurers to provide written explanations to consumers when premiums increase at renewal for personal auto and homeowners policies, upon request.",{"_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},6053921,"Employment Department backs HB 3024 to remove an 8-times penalty from unemployment benefits",414,2711000,3125000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839&start=2711&end=3125","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839/thumbnail_2711000.jpg","/articles/6053921/Oregon/Employment-Department-backs-HB-3024-to-remove-an-8-times-penalty-from-unemployment-benefits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6053921-31ed39e27af2426739b72403a6be5da6/orig.mp4?Expires=1772885096&Signature=W52FfykQ-GYeUC4a3g6DzvHnHUE7K1lYcNdUggecv-PVzUj5IdHA34jLwl5wbs11hQD-XGwdOakB7~7kLgw3lyKK45mcdfYmnlxwoT-aWeIM8-CBCTXACpYM072545blOTYhM0RCg-xdjX9eQ4bDuh7aqu5TP4WGtRYm6CNpLTqGV2vi5tiLf7TUg8aVK26N1kcxJh8Xt7yEfNdUgWip2kclLwiaYwFxqQQ6hRe8VD~DddrgBOVRh1oOClHSdoqVVt193GwaoNeZJs9GVt8eKKGLlV4MOUwP0pEGiTAsDrncJTc-HY3IyJ8Dtq0TVb4oVOmQBwcaDa3WlmuEL6tR0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Oregon Employment Department and legal-aid advocates urged the Senate Committee on Labor and Business to support House Bill 3024 on May 15, 2025. The bill would remove a penalty that reduces a requalified claimant’s maximum unemployment benefit amount by eight times the weekly benefit after a disqualifying separation.

Lindsay Leahy, unemployment insurance division director at the Oregon Employment Department, told the committee that current law requires two consequences when a worker is disqualified for cause: the worker must requalify for benefits (typically by earning four times their weekly benefit) and, once requalified, the worker’s maximum benefit bank is reduced by eight times their weekly benefit. Leahy said the bill would keep the disqualification rules in place but eliminate the second penalty so an otherwise eligible requalified worker could access the full 26 weeks of benefits if needed.

“We estimate that about 400 additional people per biennium would be eligible to receive at least one more week of benefits with the passage of the bill,” Leahy said, adding that the department expects the change would streamline adjudication and reduce administrative complexity. Leahy told senators the department estimates an impact to the unemployment insurance trust fund of about $1.3 million over the 2025–27 biennium while noting that OED paid about $1.5 billion in benefits over the last two years.

Bridget Budbell of the Oregon Law Center urged support as well, saying the penalty “limits your future economic stability” when a worker needs extra weeks between jobs and that a few more weeks of benefits can matter for mortgage or rent payments.

The committee closed the public hearing and will consider the measure in future work sessions. No committee vote was recorded on the day’s testimony.","The Oregon Employment Department urged the Senate committee to pass House Bill 3024, which would eliminate an 8-times reduction penalty on a worker’s maximum unemployment benefit amount after disqualification and requalification; department officials said the change simplifies administration and would have a small fiscal impact.",{"_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},6053925,"Senate committee adopts amendment and advances HB 3167A to curb ticket-resale software abuses",310,2101000,2411000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839&start=2101&end=2411","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3342545-20229539ca0fd2c13752aec9cedd3839/thumbnail_2101000.jpg","/articles/6053925/Oregon/Senate-committee-adopts-amendment-and-advances-HB-3167A-to-curb-ticket-resale-software-abuses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6053925-871c993147d39f7831290afb1f42847d/orig.mp4?Expires=1772885096&Signature=nYmAHrdt2qvKq4vOAnR-YtrNwQZOyaBKAsK7qpLVpBeHSWKSvT19ks2ul8po9HDevv~uYXL0MuZ7ddUJ1j6n7OTOg9dnjknDOXi91ZB6i1MoQ00JdAfdS8ht8F1Zl1noOPOEE3AVXkOH7x-NSLBGgpomXIVvehqqhpUrzzuk244LgcNcxl-Sfr2C9U8LvdmfIi7oUqJU2xzixr1XwJNeavXt9QMmR7HiSd3fYcxySBwd7-0IFhjWsfNJm16RSF2knrSrs~OG3MiPBqc4oV6yK3DnAzpQnudgFwdbEagcHCY9FwPYtrD762sJ9SVMXFjGEQNw0ryL87JdLx5njbqI~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Labor and Business adopted a replacement amendment to House Bill 3167A on May 15 and moved the amended bill out of committee with a due-pass recommendation to the Senate floor.

The committee adopted the A11 substitute, which, according to staff summary, replaces the underlying measure with provisions that prohibit willful sale or use of software designed to circumvent ticketing controls and requires resellers to disclose specified information to purchasers.

A committee staff member summarized the amendment on the record: the A11 would “prohibit willfully selling or using software that has the purpose to circumvent, thwart, interfere with, or evade a control or measure, including a security measure or an access control system that a ticket seller establishes or uses to ensure equitable distribution, sale, or resale” of event admission tickets. The staff explanation also said the amendment requires certain disclosures to purchasers and bars a reseller from offering tickets for resale unless they have possession of the ticket or a written contract to obtain it.

Senators suspended the rules to consider the amendment and then to move the bill to the floor without a fiscal or revenue-impact statement available for committee review. Vice Chair Bonham moved to adopt the A11 amendment and later moved to suspend rules so the committee could send HB 3167A as amended to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the motions passed without objection. Senator Taylor announced he will be the bill carrier to the floor.

The amendment applies to offers to sell or resale transactions that occur on or after Jan. 1, 2026, and expands enforcement and disclosure requirements for resellers and resale platforms.

Committee members thanked staff and outside stakeholders for negotiating the language. The committee adopted the amendment and advanced the bill in the same hearing day.","Lawmakers on the Senate Committee on Labor and Business adopted a substitute amendment to House Bill 3167A that targets software used to circumvent ticketing controls, then suspended rules and moved the amended bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate committee pauses HB 2957A after debate over BOLI right-to-sue timing and a proposed compromise

Committee hears bill to require insurers to explain renewal premium increases to consumers

Employment Department backs HB 3024 to remove an 8-times penalty from unemployment benefits

Senate committee adopts amendment and advances HB 3167A to curb ticket-resale software abuses