Connecticut Senate Bill SB00184

Connecticut 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/22/12
• Refer: 2/22/12
• Report Pass: 3/15/12
• Refer: 3/19/12
• Report Pass: 3/26/12
• Engrossed: 4/18/12
• Report Pass: 4/20/12

Caption

An Act Concerning The Definition Of Employer In The Family And Medical Leave Act.

Impact

The impact of this bill on state laws would be significant as it modifies the definitions under which employers must comply with family and medical leave requirements. By increasing the employee threshold, smaller employers may no longer be subject to the same obligations, potentially leading to disparities in access to leave benefits for employees. This change could influence a wide range of businesses and affect employee rights concerning family and medical leave in the state.

Summary

SB00184, titled 'An Act Concerning the Definition of Employer in the Family and Medical Leave Act', seeks to redefine what constitutes an employer under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The proposed change raises the threshold for the number of employees required for an entity to be considered an employer from a lower number to seventy-five or more employees. This revision is aimed at clarifying the responsibilities and obligations of employers regarding employee leave, especially for family and medical situations that necessitate time away from work.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB00184 appears to be supportive among those emphasizing the need for clearer definitions and parameters regarding employer obligations. However, there may be concerns among advocacy groups and employees who feel that raising the employee threshold could limit access to necessary leave benefits for a segment of the workforce, particularly in smaller companies. As such, discussions around the bill likely reveal a division between those who prioritize business interests and those advocating for employee rights.

Contention

Notable points of contention include whether it is appropriate to narrow the definition of employer when many advocates argue that such benefits should be universally available regardless of the size of the business. Critics of the bill might argue that it undermines protections for employees working at smaller companies who may also face significant family and medical needs. This legislative change is thus poised to prompt discussions about the balance between business regulations and employees' rights.