Committee hears bill to extend Domestic Violence Leave Act protections to hate-crime victims

A House Labor and Workplace Standards Committee staffer briefed members Friday on substitute Senate Bill 5101, which would expand the state’s Domestic Violence Leave Act to let employees who are victims of hate crimes — and certain family members — take reasonable leave or request safety accommodations.

Ben McCarthy, committee staff, said, “This bill expands the protections of the Domestic Violence Leave Act to employees who are, or whose family members are victims of hate crimes.” The existing act allows leave for domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking and permits verification through a police report, protection order, documentation from a victim advocate, an attorney, clergy or medical professional, or an employee’s written statement; leave may be paid or unpaid and an employer may require verification for permitted purposes.

The bill would add victims of hate crimes to the list of qualifying reasons for leave and extend the act’s anti-discrimination protections so an employer may not discriminate against someone who is, or is perceived to be, a victim of a hate crime.

Why it matters: Supporters said hate crimes produce distinctive psychological harms tied to a victim’s identity and often require time for medical care, counseling, safety planning, relocation, or to pursue justice. Opponents and some civil-rights advocates urged clearer verification language to reduce the risk of weaponized or false claims.

Senator Javier Valdez, the bill’s prime sponsor, described prior legislative efforts on hate-crime reporting and the recent hotline pilot and framed the measure as a gap-filler: it would “ensure that folks have that opportunity and avenue to take that leave, should they be in that unfortunate space to be a victim of a hate crime.”

Proponents during the public hearing included Mary Cypress, regional director, Anti-Defamation League Pacific Northwest, who said, “Hate crimes are unique because they leave a psychological effect following an attack on an individual's identity,” and Christophe Mayor, policy coordinator, Washington State Labor Council, who said the bill “does not require victims of hate crimes to engage with the criminal legal system to access safe leave.” Gabrielle Newman of GSBA and Cindy Sandino Chang of Seattle’s Crime Survivor Services also testified in support, pointing to increased incidents and the need for time to attend medical and court appointments.

Some advocacy groups asked for narrower verification language. Sabrine O'Day of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said the bill as drafted “is problematic” because it could allow verification by “any professional or individual or self reporting,” and she warned of swatting, doxing and false accusations that have affected some Muslim community members. Angelique Rodriguez of Care Washington urged amendments so that “workers [cannot] claim leave based on alleged hate crimes even if the incident doesn't meet the legal definition of a hate crime under state law.”

The Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which helped draft the original domestic-violence leave law, urged caution about narrowing verification options, arguing survivor-centered flexibility is needed and that survivors’ needs and reporting choices vary.

The committee suspended the public hearing on SB 5101 at the end of the panel. No final committee action on the bill was taken at this meeting.

What’s next: Committee staff said the hearing would be deferred for committee consideration; sponsors and stakeholders indicated they had negotiated language in other settings and would continue to refine verification and survivor-centered provisions.

Ending note: Testimony reflected broad support for expanding access to leave coupled with requests for clearer verification standards to limit the risk of misuse while preserving options for victims who do not report to law enforcement.