ND committee hears bill to require employers to allow religious rest; panel votes 'do not pass'

House Bill 1608 would prohibit an employer from denying an employee leave “for rest or worship” on Sunday or “a day the employee recognizes as a religious holiday,” sponsor State Representative Matt Heilman said in testimony to the Industry, Business and Labor Committee. Representative Heilman said the bill responds to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2023 unanimous ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, which the sponsor said clarified the legal standard for “undue hardship.”

The bill drew questions about scope and enforceability from committee members, and several business groups and the state labor agency testified in opposition. Zachary Greenberg, interim commissioner of the North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights, told the committee the bill’s current language uses the term “emergency” rather than the Supreme Court’s “undue hardship” standard and that difference could create conflicts between state and federal law. “The emergency standard deviates significantly from the federal undue hardship test, which could lead to practical and legal challenges for employers,” Greenberg said.

Representatives and witnesses raised operational concerns about staffing for 24/7 businesses and small employers. Eric Spencer, president and CEO of the Greater North Dakota Chamber, warned the bill has “no limit on the number of days a person can take off for rest or worship” and said it lacks timing and notice requirements and does not address 24/7 industries or collective bargaining agreements. Mike Rood of the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers and Retail Association urged the committee not to pass the bill, saying retail and fuel businesses already manage complex scheduling and that the market is providing flexibility.

Sponsor Heilman said he and Representative Koppelman had drafted the bill to be broad and allow flexibility, and he acknowledged the bill needs language fixes: “I didn't catch this until a little bit ago … it doesn't say undue hardship. It says emergency. … Maybe crossing out emergency on the very last line and putting undue hardship would be more appropriate to align with that Supreme Court ruling,” Heilman told the committee.

Committee members asked for clearer notice requirements, limits on frequency of leave requests, and criteria for distinguishing legitimate religious observance from gaming the rule. Representative Johnson suggested adding a written-request requirement to create an evidence trail for investigations; several members worried that, without limits, employees could repeatedly claim days off. Heilman replied that undue-hardship protections would cover many problematic staffing scenarios and that he was open to amendments.

After public testimony and committee questions, Representative Bale moved a “do not pass” recommendation. The committee adopted the motion; the clerk recorded the committee’s outcome as a “do not pass” recommendation on House Bill 1608 (tally recorded in the hearing as 8–2–4).