Relating to the creation of a cause of action for an employee prohibited from or penalized for voting.
If passed, HB 881 would amend the Election Code to provide clearer protections for workers regarding their voting rights. It would introduce penalties for employers who violate these provisions, classified as a Class C misdemeanor. In addition, employees who successfully bring suit against their employers for these violations may be awarded compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney fees. This change signifies a step towards enhancing democratic participation by ensuring that employees are not deterred from voting due to potential job-related repercussions.
House Bill 881 seeks to protect employees from employer retaliation for voting. The bill amends existing legislation to create a cause of action for employees who are prohibited from taking time off to vote or who face penalties for voting on election day. It specifies that an employer cannot refuse to allow an employee to be absent from work for the purpose of voting, and establishes penalties for such violations. By providing a legal route for employees to report and seek damages for violations, the bill aims to ensure employees' rights to participate in elections without fear of losing their jobs or pay.
The sentiment surrounding HB 881 appears supportive among advocates who emphasize the importance of voting as a civic duty and fundamental right. Supporters argue that the measure is necessary to safeguard against workplace practices that could dissuade employees from exercising their voting rights. However, there might also be concerns from employer associations regarding potential abuse of the legislation, worrying that it could lead to frivolous lawsuits or complications in managing employee attendance on election days.
A notable point of contention relates to the balance between protecting employee rights and maintaining employer flexibility in workplace management. Critics may argue that the bill imposes undue restrictions on businesses, particularly smaller employers who may struggle with staffing challenges on election days. The thresholds for damages based on employer size may also spark discussions about fairness and the potential burden on businesses of various scales.