Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restroom Access Ali Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses restroom-access bill after retailers and building-code concerns raised
Summary
Representative Williams’ Restroom Access Act (House Bill 3543), modeled on "Ali’s Law," was presented and then continued after retailers and a building-code expert warned of operational, safety and code compliance issues for small retailers.
House Bill 3543, described by its sponsor as a state-level version of the "Restroom Access Act" (often called Ali’s Law), was presented to the Labor, Commerce and Industry subcommittee and continued for further consideration.
Representative Ramos Williams explained the bill as a simple mandate requiring retail businesses with employee restroom facilities to permit customers and prospective purchasers to use those facilities when requested, particularly where a customer has an urgent medical need. Williams cited the origin story for "Ali’s Law," describing a 14-year-old in Illinois who was denied access to an employee restroom and noting that, as of January 2024, he said at least 20 other states had adopted similar laws.
Krista Henson of the South Carolina Retail Association testified that while the bill has sympathetic intent, singling out retailers and requiring them to open employee facilities to the public could create operational, safety and legal concerns, particularly for small stores that sometimes have only one employee or whose employee restroom is accessed through secured areas. "There are potential unintended consequences that could come from this bill," Henson told the committee.
Representative Chapman, noting building-code requirements from the International Code Council and the International Building Code, explained that restroom and plumbing requirements already vary by occupancy and square footage and that requiring public access to employee restrooms could impose additional burdens or renovations on small retailers whose existing layout does not accommodate public access.
Committee members debated the balance between customer needs and business burdens. Representative Williams and other members said the bill is not intended to force new construction or additional toilets, but to require access when an employee restroom exists and a customer has an urgent need.
After discussion, a motion to continue House Bill 3543 passed unanimously; the vote was recorded as unanimous on the record but exact counts were not specified. The subcommittee asked sponsors and stakeholders to continue conversations about operational exceptions and implementation specifics before the bill returns for further consideration.
