HB 2312
In CommitteeHouse
Shared leave/immigration
Authorizing shared leave for absences resulting from immigration enforcement actions.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill adds immigration enforcement action as a qualifying reason for state employees to receive shared leave—paid time off funded by other employees’ donated leave—when they or their family members face detention, deportation, legal proceedings, or family separation due to immigration enforcement. It includes safeguards to protect confidentiality and clarify verification procedures.
- Adds immigration enforcement action as a qualifying reason for shared leave, including situations involving detainment, deportation, court or administrative proceedings, and family separation.
- Allows employees to use shared leave if they or a family member (as broadly defined) are affected by immigration enforcement actions.
- Permits employers to request verification of immigration-related leave, but prohibits requiring disclosure of personal immigration status; verifies that any such documentation is confidential and protected from public records requests.
- Sets rules for how employees can submit verification—including from advocates, attorneys, clergy, or a written statement—and clarifies that providing such documentation does not waive attorney-client or other professional privileges.
- Maintains existing shared leave limits (e.g., 522 days total, with possible exceptions for severe medical conditions) and rules for intermittent use and return of unused leave.
- Allows leave transfers between employees (including across agencies) and specifies how agencies must handle payroll and budgeting for shared leave.
Who is affected
- State and public sector employees — State employees (including those in higher education, school districts, and educational service districts) who experience or have family members affected by immigration enforcement actions may receive additional paid leave through the shared leave program.
- Family members of state employees — Family members of state employees—including parents, siblings, spouses, children, grandparents, grandchildren, and others who regularly reside in the employee’s home and depend on them for care—may be considered when determining eligibility for shared leave due to immigration enforcement actions.
- Immigration service providers and professionals — Immigration advocates, attorneys, clergy, and other professionals who assist employees with immigration enforcement matters may provide documentation to support leave requests without compromising client confidentiality.
- State agency employers and HR staff — State agencies and their HR offices must implement new procedures for accepting and reviewing shared leave requests related to immigration enforcement, including handling confidential documentation.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill provides critical paid leave protection for state employees and their families facing immigration enforcement, reducing the risk of job loss, financial instability, and family separation during legal proceedings.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(a)(ix)By prohibiting disclosure of immigration status and ensuring confidentiality of submitted documentation, the bill protects vulnerable employees and their families from potential retaliation, deportation risk, or privacy violations.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(a)(ix)(B)Allowing a simple written statement—without requiring third-party documentation—lowers barriers to access for employees who cannot obtain formal documentation (e.g., due to trauma, lack of legal representation, or fear of institutions).
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(a)(ix)(B)(II)Permitting verification from advocates, attorneys, or clergy—without waiving professional privileges—supports access to trusted community-based support systems and strengthens due process protections.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(a)(ix)(B)(I)Expanding the definition of 'family member' to include individuals who regularly reside in the employee’s home and depend on them for care ensures broader inclusivity—especially for LGBTQ+, multigenerational, and immigrant households that may not fit traditional legal definitions.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(a)(ix)(C)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill may increase administrative burden and complexity for state HR and law enforcement agencies reviewing immigration-related leave requests, potentially diverting resources from core public safety functions.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(a)(ix)While the bill prohibits disclosure of immigration status, agencies must implement new verification protocols and redaction procedures, increasing administrative overhead for HR staff across state and local public employers.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(a)(ix)(B)The 522-day lifetime cap on shared leave remains unchanged, meaning employees with prolonged immigration-related absences may exhaust leave benefits before full resolution of their cases—potentially forcing unpaid leave or job loss.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(2)(a)Employees must deplete their annual and sick leave before accessing shared leave for immigration-related absences, disproportionately affecting lower-income workers who have fewer accrued leave balances and less financial runway.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(1)(d)(iv)The 25% salary cap on shared leave for employees receiving industrial insurance wage replacement creates a potential income cliff for workers with overlapping immigration and workplace injury cases, reducing net income during extended leave.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1, RCW 41.04.665(2)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
State employees (and their families) who face immigration enforcement actions gain access to paid leave, reducing financial and legal vulnerability. However, those with minimal accrued leave may still face hardship before qualifying.
Family members covered under the broad definition gain indirect protection through the employee’s ability to take paid leave, but the benefit is contingent on the employee’s eligibility and leave balances.
Immigration service providers (attorneys, advocates, clergy) gain formal recognition as verifiers, strengthening their role in supporting clients—but they face no new obligations or liabilities under the bill.
State agencies and HR staff face new administrative duties (reviewing verification, redacting sensitive data, managing inter-agency leave transfers), but are not provided new funding—potentially straining existing resources.
Low- and middle-income workers—especially those without significant leave accruals—may struggle to meet the requirement to deplete annual/sick leave before accessing shared leave, limiting the bill’s real-world impact for the most vulnerable.