HB 2695
In CommitteeHouse
Layoff notices/agricultural
Exempting certain agricultural activities from mass layoff notice requirements.
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 exempts certain agricultural workers from receiving 60-day advance notice of layoffs if their employment was explicitly tied to a specific harvest or seasonal period and documented in writing at hiring. It amends existing state law to clarify which agricultural activities qualify and adds this seasonal exception to the list of situations where notice is not required.
- Amends the definition of 'agricultural labor' to clarify which activities qualify for the exception from mass layoff notice requirements.
- Adds a new exception to the 60-day layoff notice requirement for agricultural workers hired for a specific season or harvest period, provided the end date was disclosed in writing at hiring.
- Requires employers to provide written confirmation at time of hire that employment is limited to a specific agricultural season or harvest period.
- Maintains existing exceptions for other scenarios (e.g., natural disasters, unforeseen business circumstances), but explicitly includes seasonal agricultural work as a new category of exemption.
- Requires the Employment Security Department to establish documentation standards to verify eligibility for the agricultural exception.
Who is affected
- Agricultural employers — Agricultural workers hired for specific seasonal tasks (e.g., harvest) may no longer receive 60-day layoff notices if their employment was explicitly tied to a seasonal or harvest period, as confirmed in writing at hiring.
- Farm and orchard operators — May benefit from not needing to provide 60-day notices for seasonal agricultural layoffs, but must still meet documentation and good-faith requirements to claim the exception.
- Seasonal agricultural workers — May lose access to advance notice of layoffs if their seasonal employment was documented at hiring, potentially reducing time to prepare for job loss or seek alternative work.
- Employment Security Department (ESD) — Must ensure proper documentation (e.g., written agreements specifying seasonal end dates) to legally claim the exception and avoid liability.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
Clarifies existing ambiguity in the law by explicitly adding seasonal agricultural work as a distinct exception to the 60-day notice requirement, potentially reducing legal uncertainty for employers and preventing disputes over whether seasonal work qualifies for an exception.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(d)(e)Requires the Employment Security Department to establish clear documentation standards, which could improve consistency in enforcement and reduce arbitrary denials or approvals — though this benefit is contingent on robust rulemaking and oversight.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(3) and Sec. 1(13)May reduce administrative costs for the Employment Security Department by limiting the number of notice claims requiring investigation — though this saving is likely modest given the small share of agricultural layoffs relative to total claims.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact section
Potential Concerns (5)
Eliminates the right to 60-day advance notice for seasonal agricultural workers whose employment is documented as seasonal at hiring — effectively removing a core procedural protection that allows workers time to prepare for job loss, seek alternative employment, or access unemployment benefits, even though the layoff is not truly unforeseen but rather predictable seasonally.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(d)(e)Increases economic precarity for seasonal agricultural workers, who are disproportionately low-income and often lack savings or access to credit, by removing advance notice — potentially leading to sudden income loss, housing instability, food insecurity, and delayed access to critical services like healthcare or childcare, especially during off-season transitions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(d)(e) and Sec. 2(3)Shifts administrative burden and compliance risk onto individual workers: since employers must provide written confirmation at hire, but the Employment Security Department must verify eligibility, workers may be left to prove that their employment was *not* seasonal if disputes arise — placing them at disadvantage in enforcement and dispute resolution without legal or institutional support.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3) and Sec. 1(12)Reduces potential penalty revenue and enforcement activity for the Employment Security Department, which may reduce deterrence against employer noncompliance — especially where documentation is weak or forged — ultimately weakening labor standards enforcement capacity and increasing undercounted violations.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact sectionMay reduce administrative costs for employers by eliminating the requirement to issue 60-day notices for seasonal workers — but this benefit is largely symbolic, as most seasonal employers already anticipate seasonal end dates and likely would not have issued notice anyway under current practice.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(d)(e)
Who Is Most Affected
Seasonal agricultural workers — especially those without permanent housing, stable childcare, or access to unemployment benefits — are most directly harmed by loss of notice. They often rely on seasonal work as their primary annual income and have limited ability to quickly re-enter the labor market. The bill removes a key procedural safeguard without providing alternative support mechanisms.
Large agribusinesses and farm operators with seasonal labor needs benefit from reduced administrative burden and legal risk. However, small and mid-sized farms may not benefit significantly, as they likely already anticipated seasonal end dates and rarely issued 60-day notices in practice. The bill's documentation requirement may even burden small farms with additional paperwork.
The Employment Security Department gains rulemaking authority but faces increased enforcement complexity. While fewer claims may require investigation, verifying written agreements and distinguishing legitimate seasonal work from disguised year-round labor will require new staff and training — potentially straining resources without dedicated funding.
Farmworker advocacy and legal aid organizations may see increased demand for assistance in disputes over seasonal status, documentation, and unemployment eligibility — especially where employers fail to provide written agreements or retroactively claim seasonal status. This could strain already limited community-based support systems.
Local governments (e.g., counties with high agricultural employment) may face indirect costs if seasonal workers experience increased housing instability, food insecurity, or health issues due to lack of notice — potentially increasing demand for emergency social services, shelter, or public health interventions. However, these effects are likely modest and indirect.