Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee substitutes and advances SB 86; debate centers on employee-threshold for antidiscrimination coverage
Summary
The committee approved a first substitute to SB 86 addressing workplace protections and harassment language, and then restored the 15-employee threshold (the federal baseline) after debate; sponsors said the substitute fixes last session—s drafting errors and expands state protections in targeted code sections.
The committee passed the first substitute of Senate Bill 86, a workplace-protection package that fixes a drafting error in last year's harassment law and includes clarifications to the statute that addresses workplace harassment and discrimination.
Sponsor Senator Pitcher explained the substitute combines a correction to a definition added last session with additional cleaning language. Public testimony included advocates for lowering the employer-size threshold (the federal Title VII baseline is 15 employees) and business groups opposing a lower threshold. Several advocates and attorneys said lowering the threshold would extend protections to employees of very small employers; opponents said it would impose burdens and litigation risk on small businesses.
Senator Pitcher and co-sponsors debated whether to replace an initial proposed threshold of 5 employees with a lower number such as 10. Committee discussion produced a substitute motion to change the bill's numeric threshold; the committee ultimately restored the statutory cutoff of 15 (the existing federal baseline) on the floor of the committee via amendment. After that change, the committee voted to favorably recommend the first substitute to the full Senate; the transcript records the vote as 6-0 in committee.
Sponsor and supporters stressed the substitute primarily corrects a definition and improves enforcement language while leaving other elements open for floor consideration. Opponents raised concerns about litigation burden for small employers and potential regulatory complexity.
