Committee considers expanding paid family and medical leave protections to all workers and shortening claim periods

House Bill 1213 would remove employer-size thresholds for employment protection under Washington’s paid family and medical leave program, shorten the minimum claim period from eight hours to four, and require employers to maintain employees’ health care coverage during periods of PFML leave for which the employee is entitled to employment protection.

The bill’s prime sponsor told the committee that nearly half of workers covered by the PFML program currently lack job protection and that a University of Washington study found large disparities in which workers have reinstatement rights. “Seventy percent of high-wage workers have access to job protection, but only 16 percent of low-wage workers do,” the sponsor said, arguing that expanding protection would increase take-up and family economic security.

Testimony favored expansion from labor and advocacy groups who said the changes would make the benefit usable for workers who currently decline leave out of fear of job loss. Gabriela Quintana of the Economic Opportunity Institute said outreach revealed eligible workers who declined leave because reinstatement wasn’t guaranteed. Dan McKesson, president of the ILWU Washington Area District Council, said the bill is “a critical next step” to ensure workers can take medically necessary leave without risking their jobs. Multiple individual witnesses described losing jobs or being pressured back to work after childbirth or other leave.

Business and local government groups opposed parts of the bill or urged changes. Lindsey Huer of the Association of Washington Business praised the bill’s clarification on PFML and FMLA concurrency but warned that extending reinstatement and health coverage requirements to small employers would be “very challenging” and urged strengthening the small-business grant program. Paul Jewell of the Washington State Association of Counties said reducing the eligibility threshold from one year of employment to 90 days could undercut probationary periods counties use to assess new hires. The Association of Washington Cities and other business groups said the change could raise significant costs for small jurisdictions and employers.

Supporters pointed to existing small-business grants in the PFML program as a mitigation tool and urged streamlining and outreach. Witnesses from MomsRising and other advocacy groups detailed personal stories of being forced back to work shortly after childbirth; Margarita Mota said that because her employer pressured her to return two weeks after giving birth in 2020, expanded job protection would have allowed her to use the full leave she had earned.

The committee heard both policy arguments for equity and concerns about costs and operational impacts for small employers and local governments. Staff and witnesses discussed mechanisms to make PFML and FMLA run concurrently, employer notice requirements when counting unpaid FMLA toward PFML employment protection, and maximum aggregate employment-protection periods before reinstatement rights are forfeited. No final vote was recorded at the hearing.