Committee hears bill to require hotel employee training, debate centers on timing and "should have known" standard

Representative Bazemore presented House Bill 490 to the Economic Development & Tourism Committee on a proposal aimed at reducing human trafficking by requiring hotels and motels to provide employee training and by creating criminal penalties when proprietors "knew or should have reasonably known" their premises were being used for trafficking.

The bill’s author, Representative Bazemore, told the committee the measure arose from meetings in her district, which she said sits "so close to the busiest airport in the world," and from conversations with local mayors and law enforcement. She said hotels in the area had in some instances been "turning a blind eye" to trafficking and that training and penalties were needed so "our children are safe and that our economy is safe." Bazemore said the training requirement in lines 27–31 of the draft is the "meat of the bill," and that the committee should focus there.

Committee members broadly supported the stated goals but spent most of the hearing debating two drafting points: the bill’s timing for required training and the legal standard in the clause that would penalize owners or employees who "knew or should have reasonably known" the premises were being used for trafficking.

Several members said the draft’s six-month window for completing training is too long for workers in low-turnover roles, noting many motel and hotel employees do not remain at a single job for six months. Representative Prozinger recommended changing the deadline to a clear operational trigger, saying the training should occur "just prior to reporting to duty," so it applies regardless of whether an employer uses a formal onboarding package. Other members proposed narrower time frames such as 30 days, or language that ties training to an employee’s first day. Bazemore said she would accept adjustments and would work with legislative counsel before the committee reconvenes.

Lawmakers also debated the phrase "knew or should have reasonably known." One committee member warned that language can carry a distinct legal meaning and asked the sponsor to consult legislative counsel before altering it. Legislative counsel told the committee that the code section referenced in subsection b (identified by counsel as 0.16546) uses the term "knowingly," and that removing the constructive-knowledge language would align subsection d with that statutory phrasing. Other members argued that "should have reasonably known" creates constructive-knowledge teeth that can prevent owners or employees from escaping liability by claiming ignorance when there is obvious evidence.

Speakers also noted local examples during the hearing: Bazemore said there are "over 30 hotels in College Park" and recounted that mayors and the first lady have raised the issue statewide. Members cited instances where rooms were used repeatedly and staff were told not to enter, and they noted that harvesting or trafficking activity can increase during major events or around airports.

No vote was taken. The committee chair asked members to review lines 27–35 and directed the sponsor to work with counsel; the bill was set to return for further consideration at the committee’s next meeting on Monday.

Votes at a glance: none—no formal motions or roll-call votes were recorded during this hearing.