Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb225 Military Spouse Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill to require employers to hold jobs for spouses of deployed service members
Summary
HB 225 would require employers with 50+ employees to hold a position open for a service member's spouse during involuntary mobilization. Veterans groups and the Adjutant General's office supported the proposal; DOL said it can administer enforcement but suggested technical language clarifications for remedies and fee awards.
Representative Creighton (chair) introduced HB 225, which would require employers of 50 or more employees to hold a position open for a service member's spouse during involuntary mobilization under federal activation (Title 10). The sponsor described the bill as a way to preserve civilian employment for families while the service member is activated.
"If yours your employee's spouse deploys, I just want you to hold that position open," the sponsor said, describing families that face childcare and household strains when a member is deployed and urging a modest accommodation from employers.
Testimony from veterans' representatives and the National Guard leadership urged support. Kevin Grady of the State Veterans Advisory Committee said the group "support[s] this legislation" and noted that deployments can create substantial financial and childcare burdens for families. Deputy Adjutant General Nicole Desilets Bixler described a local case in which a spouse who requested a leave because of family exigencies after a deployment was denied and urged the committee to consider protections that help families stay afloat.
The Department of Labor said it could administer the bill's enforcement provisions but noted a drafting issue on attorney's fees and the administrative process: DOL's fiscal note recommended clarifying whether remedies and fee awards would proceed through the department's administrative hearing process or through superior court. "There's no other reference to a court procedure within the bill as written," General Counsel John Garrigan said, recommending a technical fix around section language awarding costs and fees.
Members asked whether the provision's application should include unmarried long‑term partners, whether there should be a time cap on reemployment obligations, and whether the employer would be liable when the job is no longer available because of sale or reorganization. The sponsor indicated willingness to work on drafting changes and the bill drew support from veterans' affiliates; committee action was not taken at the hearing.
