Hearing exposes split over portable paid leave: advocates press portability for people laid off or fired; DOES opposes as outside law's intent

Advocates, residents and city officials debated the Universal Paid Leave Portability Amendment Act of 2025 at a May 14 Committee on Executive Administration and Labor hearing. The bill would allow individuals to receive paid family leave wage replacement benefits if they are unemployed and not receiving unemployment insurance but were covered by the Universal Paid Leave Act in the prior 52 weeks.

Advocates' case: Multiple witnesses urged passage as a fairness fix for people who lose work because of caregiving, pregnancy discrimination, or layoffs. Laura Brown, executive director of First Shift Justice Project, said the bill would make benefits "portable, attached to the worker instead of the job" and called portability an issue of fairness for people whose employers had already reported wages and paid into the fund. Ward 4 constituent Mindy Lee described her personal case: at eight months pregnant and approved for 12 weeks of leave by her employer, she said she was laid off after federal contract cuts and, despite having wages reported to DOES, now lacked access to D.C. paid family leave. "What should be a special and sacred time of preparing to become a new parent has been tainted by the stress of losing my job and trying and failing to access critical district support and benefits that I have contributed to as a D.C. resident," she testified.

Government position and operational concerns: Dr. Eunique Morris Hughes, Director of the Department of Employment Services, said DOES opposes the bill because the current statute contemplates leave taken from employment. In her testimony, Hughes cited statutory language that requires notice to an employer and explained DOES built its systems on the original leave-from-work model. "The act clearly contemplates an individual currently has an employer to whom such notice must be delivered," she said. Hughes noted the program began collecting employer taxes on July 1, 2019 and administering benefits on July 1, 2020 and that DOES has paid over $130,000,000 in benefits. She recommended exploring benefit coordination with other District programs rather than amending the paid-leave statute.

Other testimony and policy details: Witnesses and councilmembers flagged several practical consequences and policy options: advocates asked the Council to ensure unpaid caregivers, self-employed people and those illegally fired for pregnancy can access wage replacement; some witnesses urged portability specifically for people who are not eligible for unemployment because they are not "able and available" to work due to caregiving or medical reasons. Witnesses also asked for better outreach to self-employed residents, and for data collection to measure how many returning citizens and caregivers are denied access.

Fiscal and administrative notes: Committee members and witnesses discussed the paid leave trust fund's balance and the effect of a lowered tax rate enacted in a prior budget (BSA) that reduced future revenues. Dr. Hughes and other officials cautioned that recent changes to the fund's revenue and the administrative design tied to current employment complicate an immediate expansion of eligibility without a fiscal and systems study.

Committee action: No vote occurred. The committee left the record open through May 28 for written testimony and indicated staff and DOES will explore benefit-coordination options and technical implementation questions before any markup.