SHB 2411
SignedHouse
Shared leave
Modifying shared leave provisions to authorize shared leave for victims of a hate crime and those whose absence is due to immigration enforcement actions against the employee or the employee's relative.
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 expands Washington’s shared leave program to allow state employees who are victims of hate crimes or whose work is disrupted by immigration enforcement actions (affecting them or their family members) to receive donated leave. It also clarifies definitions and strengthens protections for documentation confidentiality, especially for immigration-related leave.
- Adds victims of hate crimes to the list of employees eligible for shared leave under existing provisions for domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
- Adds eligibility for shared leave when an employee or their family member is involved in an immigration enforcement action, including detention, deportation, or court proceedings, with protections for confidential documentation.
- Expands the definition of 'victim' to include individuals affected by hate crimes, and clarifies definitions for domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and hate crimes using existing state law definitions.
- Allows employees to use shared leave intermittently (e.g., part-time or non-consecutive days) and maintains employee benefits and status while on leave.
- Permits employees to donate annual, sick, or personal holiday leave to colleagues in qualifying situations, with safeguards to ensure donors retain minimum leave balances (e.g., 10 days annual leave, 176 hours sick leave).
Who is affected
- Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or hate crimes — State employees (including those in school districts and educational service districts) who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or hate crimes can receive shared leave to address the impact of these crimes without losing pay or job security.
- Employees and families affected by immigration enforcement actions — State employees (and their family members) who are subject to immigration enforcement actions—such as detention, deportation, or court proceedings—can use shared leave to manage legal and family-related consequences without losing income.
- State employees who donate leave — Other state employees may donate their annual, sick, or personal holiday leave to support colleagues in qualifying situations, helping colleagues stay employed during serious personal crises.
- State agencies and agency heads — State agencies must manage shared leave requests, verify documentation (in limited cases), coordinate leave transfers, and handle associated payroll and budgeting, including potential fund transfers between agencies.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Expanding eligibility to victims of hate crimes provides critical job security and paid time off for state employees who experience targeted violence or threats based on identity, enabling them to seek medical care, legal assistance, and safety planning without financial penalty.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(vi) and Sec. 2(3)Adding immigration enforcement actions as a qualifying condition protects state employees and their families from job loss during immigration crises—including family separation—ensuring continuity of employment and income stability during highly stressful legal proceedings.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ix)Permitting leave donations (with safeguards like minimum balance thresholds) empowers coworkers to support colleagues in crisis, strengthening workplace solidarity and reducing turnover among vulnerable employees who might otherwise leave state service due to financial strain.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)-(c) and Sec. 1(5)Confidentiality protections for immigration-related documentation—including prohibitions on disclosure under public records law and restrictions on requesting personally identifying immigration information—reduce fear of data misuse and help preserve trust in state employers.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ix)(B) and Sec. 2(13)Allowing intermittent use of shared leave (e.g., part-time or nonconsecutive days) helps employees manage court dates, therapy sessions, or immigration hearings without needing full weeks off—critical for those with unpredictable legal timelines.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The verification process for immigration-related leave, while designed to protect confidentiality, creates a potential chilling effect: employees may still fear disclosing involvement in immigration proceedings—even when using a third-party advocate—due to concerns about data breaches, agency discretion, or downstream immigration enforcement cooperation with federal authorities.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ix)(B)The requirement that employees deplete (or nearly deplete) annual and sick leave before qualifying for shared leave may disproportionately burden low-wage and hourly state workers who have limited leave balances and cannot afford to go on unpaid leave during the depletion phase.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(1)(d)(iv) and Sec. 1(1)(e)(i)The 522-day cap on shared leave and the requirement for medical verification to return unused leave may create administrative burdens and uncertainty for employees with chronic or fluctuating conditions (e.g., trauma-related mental health), potentially forcing early return-to-work decisions.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(2)(a) and Sec. 1(10)(a)The bill’s confidentiality protections for immigration documentation rely heavily on agency compliance and redaction practices, but do not prohibit agencies from requesting verification in the first place—potentially deterring employees from seeking leave due to fear of scrutiny or profiling.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ix)(B) and Sec. 2(13)Allowing self-certification for immigration-related leave may strain agency HR systems if large numbers of employees use this provision, especially in agencies without robust HR infrastructure or legal counsel to assess eligibility and documentation standards.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ix)(B)(II)
Who Is Most Affected
State employees who are victims of hate crimes gain paid, job-protected time to seek safety, medical care, legal services, and emotional support—reducing financial and psychological strain during a crisis.
State employees and their families facing immigration enforcement actions gain critical income and job security during legal proceedings, reducing the risk of eviction, food insecurity, or job loss due to family separation or detention.
Donors retain minimum leave balances, but their ability to help colleagues may improve workplace morale and reduce turnover among vulnerable coworkers—though they may occasionally lose leave they’d prefer to accrue.
Agencies face added administrative work in processing requests and coordinating inter-agency leave transfers, but costs are likely modest given the limited scope and existing shared-leave infrastructure.
School districts and educational service districts gain access to the same leave-sharing flexibility as other state agencies, helping retain educators and support staff during personal crises—though they may face new HR workload.