Committee hears bill to let state employees receive shared leave after hate crimes or immigration enforcement actions

House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee · January 13, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 2,411 would expand Washington's shared-leave program to cover employees who are victims of hate crimes or who are absent because of immigration enforcement actions; sponsors and state offices argued it is a low-cost, humane retention tool while some members requested clarification about coverage for undocumented individuals.

Representative Osman Salahuddin introduced House Bill 2,411, arguing that shared leave should allow coworkers to donate accrued leave to employees facing prolonged absence because they were victims of hate crimes or because they — or a close family member — are subject to immigration enforcement actions. The sponsor said the change fixes a gap identified when a state employee detained at the Canadian border could not receive donated leave.

OPR staff summarized the bill’s main elements: expanding qualifying events, permitting agencies to request verification for immigration-related absences, and including confidentiality protections and limited verification pathways so agencies may not disclose immigration status.

The Office of Financial Management and the Office of Equity testified in strong support, as did the Washington Federation of State Employees, which recounted a union member who was detained and whose coworkers used leave donations to preserve her job and housing.

Witnesses emphasized that the bill is not intended to create new entitlements or broaden eligibility to nonemployees, and the sponsor stressed the agency verification mechanism and protections for confidentiality. Committee members asked whether the policy would inadvertently apply to employees without legal status; OFM and union witnesses said state employment generally requires documentation but agreed to follow up with the committee with confirmation.

The committee closed the public record on this bill after taking the scheduled panels and remote testimony. No vote occurred during this hearing.