Assembly bill 388 would expand paid family and medical leave to state and larger private employers; supporters cite caregiver hardship, opponents cite cost to‑w

Assemblymember Selena LaRue Hatch presented Assembly Bill 388 to expand paid family and medical leave to executive‑branch employees and private employers with 50 or more employees; the sponsor said the threshold was chosen to exclude small businesses and to match existing sick leave statutes.

LaRue Hatch and several witnesses recounted personal caregiving examples: premature births, neonatal intensive care stays, early‑onset Alzheimer's, and cancer treatment. "My daughter Abby...was 4 pounds and 2 ounces when she was born," LaRue Hatch said, describing unpaid leave after an early birth. Testifiers from unions, caregiver groups, health and aging organizations, and education associations urged passage and described broad support across communities. Supporters included the Nevada State AFL‑CIO, SEIU, Make It Work Nevada, Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, Alzheimer’s Association and numerous unions and local labor councils.

The bill would allow employees who have worked 90 days to take up to 12 weeks of paid family medical leave for qualifying events such as birth, adoption, serious medical conditions, caring for a seriously ill family member, military exigency, and safe leave for victims of domestic violence. The bill protects 40 hours of existing PTO from being required to be used first, preserves collective‑bargaining agreements that provide superior benefits, and includes a sliding‑scale wage replacement tied to the state average weekly wage (testimony cited ~ $1,200/week or about $57,000/year as an illustrative figure). Under the sponsor's presentation, employees at or below 110% of the state average weekly wage would receive 100% of wages up to the bill's cap; higher earners would receive a smaller percentage on a sliding scale, with a cap designed to limit replacement for very high incomes.

Supporters argued the policy reduces turnover, improves employee health, and increases workforce participation; the sponsor cited economic analyses indicating lower turnover and returns on employer investment in some sectors. Testimony emphasized exceptions and protections for collective bargaining and noted other large employers already offer parental leave programs.

Business groups and trade associations opposed the bill, citing uncertainty about costs, administrative and compliance burdens, penalties and potential impacts on competitiveness. The Vegas Chamber, Henderson Chamber, Retail Association of Nevada, Reno‑Sparks Chamber, Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance, NFIB Nevada, builders, contractors, and other industry groups urged caution or opposed passage as drafted. Opponents repeatedly warned that employers might bear double payroll costs (paying both the employee on leave and replacement staff) and expressed concern about payroll cost inflation flowing into prices for consumers and housing.

Committee members asked technical questions about implementation, whether other states share employer/employee funding models, the choice of the 50‑employee threshold (sponsor: matches existing statute and affects about 4% of Nevada businesses but covers many workers), and notice and documentation standards. Labor Commissioner Brett Harris testified neutral given his agency's enforcement responsibilities. The committee did not vote on AB 388 at the hearing.