Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paid Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill to require employers to disclose leave eligibility to applicants, with amendments
Summary
The Assembly Labor Committee released A4621 after testimony from worker advocates and business groups; supporters said applicants need transparent information about leave protections, while NFIB and business representatives warned of burdens on small employers and uncertainty about employer ability to determine eligibility.
The Assembly Labor Committee voted to release A4621, legislation that would require employers to disclose to applicants, at the time of a job offer, whether the applicant would be eligible to access state and federal family and disability leave programs and to provide reasons when an applicant would be ineligible.
Yara Womancole, workplace justice program director at New Jersey Citizen Action, told the committee she supports the bill's intent to increase worker awareness but urged caution in the bill's language. She said employers do not always have the information necessary to determine eligibility for Temporary Disability Insurance or Family Leave Insurance, because those programs depend on prior covered earnings and other employment history. "Employers also do not determine eligibility for TDI or FLI benefits for workers," she said, and recommended that the Department of Labor draft a standardized notice explaining eligibility criteria.
Eileen Keane, state director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said the proposal would be a burden on small employers that often do not make written offers and who may lack HR infrastructure to comply. "This just seems redundant, and I leave you with the question of where is personal responsibility before somebody has even started working," Keane said.
A labor representative argued that many employees cannot determine how many people an employer employs and therefore cannot judge which leave laws apply; the witness said a simple notice at hire would benefit both employers and employees by clarifying which protections do and do not apply.
Committee members discussed practical issues including remote workers, poster visibility, and whether a hiring "flyer" listing programs rather than personalized determinations might accomplish the same transparency goal. The sponsor said she would seek a second reference to continue drafting and compromise on technical language.
After debate, the committee moved and approved the bill with committee amendments. Committee members recorded votes and the chair announced the measure was released with amendments to address technical concerns and definitions.
