Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Military Spouse Job Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to hold jobs for spouses of service members deployed more than a year
Summary
A New Hampshire bill that would require employers with 50 or more workers to hold a job open for a service member’s spouse during deployments longer than a year was introduced and received supportive testimony at a Committee on Commerce hearing.
A New Hampshire bill that would require larger private employers to hold a job open for spouses of service members who are deployed for a year and a day drew supportive testimony at a Committee on Commerce hearing.
Representative Creighton, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the measure was offered by the National Guard Bureau and would require employers with at least 50 employees to hold a position for a military spouse who must leave work “as a direct result of the deployment.” “The employer does not have to provide benefits, doesn't have to provide pay, just says leave the slot open,” Creighton said.
The State Veterans Advisory Committee backed the bill. Kevin Grady, who identified himself as the committee’s legislative chair and a 25-year Air Force veteran, told lawmakers that deployments can leave families short of income and childcare capacity. He said the committee “strongly support[s] this legislation” because it helps the spouse at home and “makes that deployment a lot easier.”
John Garrigan, general counsel for the New Hampshire Department of Labor, said the department is neutral and can enforce the bill as written. He told lawmakers that a related statute protecting National Guard members—cited as RSA 1:10‑c—has different enforcement mechanics and that the relief in those statutes tends to be equitable (for example, ordering resumption of a position or back pay) rather than civil‑penalty driven.
Senators on the committee raised questions about the bill’s scope. Senator Fenton asked whether the deployment language was intended to reflect how temporary duty (TDY) and permanent change of station are handled in military practice; the sponsor said the “year and a day” language reflects that military deployments beyond a year move into a different administrative category. Senator Murphy and others asked about the firm‑size threshold; Creighton confirmed the bill applies only to employers with 50 or more employees.
No vote was taken at the hearing, and the committee closed public testimony and recessed for the next item.
Why it matters: Supporters said the bill is a targeted, low‑cost way to reduce economic strain on military families during long deployments; the Department of Labor said it can administer the statute but noted the statute’s enforcement remedies are primarily equitable.
