Become a Founder Member Now!

Committee holds sick-leave bill to align with related legislation after public testimony

October 09, 2025 | Prince George's County, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee holds sick-leave bill to align with related legislation after public testimony
The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee voted to hold CB 78-2025 after discussion of proposed amendments and public testimony. The bill would create a category of paid sick leave for county employees to prepare for or participate in immigration proceedings involving the employee or a family member.

Committee staff described the proposal as providing mandated paid sick leave for county employees or the employee’s family member for immigration proceedings, with definitions, verification requirements and suggested caps on hours. The Office of Human Resources Management submitted recommended amendments, including leave-hour caps, a definition for “family member” and a requirement for official legal documentation to support leave requests.

Budget and policy analysts said the fiscal impact would likely be limited and primarily related to lost productive time; overtime costs could increase in some departments but were likely to be absorbed by existing personnel budgets. “It’s more likely that the cost will be absorbed into existing personnel budgets,” the budget analyst told the committee.

Sonia Owens, the county executive liaison, said the executive branch supported the legislation as amended. A community policy analyst from CASA, Aden Aron, testified in favor of the bill on behalf of more than 38,000 CASA members in Prince George’s County, calling immigration proceedings traumatic and saying the measure would let workers “respond without having to go unpaid or hide what they are going through.”

The motion to hold the bill carried 5-0; the sponsor indicated there is a related measure the committee should consider alongside CB 78 and sought the pause to allow concurrent review. The committee did not take further action while staff and stakeholders continue to work on harmonizing the two bills.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI