Maryland Senate Bill SB985

Maryland 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/22
• Refer: 2/19/22
• Refer: 3/7/22
• Report Pass: 3/18/22
• Engrossed: 3/21/22
• Refer: 3/22/22
• Report Pass: 4/8/22

Caption

Labor and Employment - Unemployment Insurance - Duties of Secretary and Penalties

Impact

The bill amends existing provisions of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law to introduce more stringent penalties for violations related to unemployment claims. By altering the criminal penalties for certain offenses, SB985 seeks to deter fraudulent activities that could undermine the integrity of the unemployment insurance program. Those found guilty of unemployment insurance violations could face significant fines and imprisonment, thus adding a layer of seriousness to compliance with UI laws.

Summary

Senate Bill 985 aims to enhance the integrity and enforcement of Maryland's Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws by instituting new duties for the Secretary of Labor. The bill mandates that the Secretary enter into memorandums of understanding with other state agencies to facilitate better implementation and enforcement of the UI program. It also establishes requirements for conducting mandatory program integrity activities, helping to ensure that benefits are administered correctly and that potential fraud is addressed effectively.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB985 appears to be supportive among legislators who emphasize the need for strict oversight and enforcement mechanisms to protect state resources. Proponents argue that enhancing the Secretary's powers and responsibilities in terms of integrity processes will lead to a more accountable system. However, there may be concern among some groups regarding the increased penalties, particularly how they may affect individuals who unintentionally violate UI laws.

Contention

While the bill is largely framed as a necessary update to existing regulations, opposition may stem from potential concerns about the balance between enforcement and equitable treatment of individuals making claims. Critics might argue that the introduction of harsher penalties could lead to unjust consequences for some claimants. The challenge will be to ensure that measures are in place to distinguish between fraudulent claims and those made in good faith that may contain errors.