An Act To Amend Title 19 Of The Delaware Code Relating To The Family And Medical Leave Insurance Program.
HB 128 amends Delaware’s Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program in Title 19 to clarify how benefits are coordinated with other leave and income-replacement sources. The bill makes the paid family and medical leave program the primary payor, allows coordination with other leave policies and collective bargaining arrangements, and permits disability insurance benefits to be offset by PFML benefits when a policy allows it. It also bars employers from requiring workers to exhaust accrued paid time off before accessing PFML benefits, while still allowing employees and employers to agree to use PTO to supplement those benefits.
The bill also revises administration of the program and private-plan participation. It requires identity verification for participants, creates a nine-member Paid Leave Advisory Committee to advise on implementation, administration, rulemaking, and financial issues, and sets meeting requirements tied to the Delaware LaborFirst system becoming fully functional. For employers using approved private plans, it clarifies application timing, limits when claim documentation must be provided to the Department, and makes clear that small employers that voluntarily offer coverage otherwise not required of them are subject to the chapter’s full provisions. The bill further adds procedures for child support withholding from PFML benefits, protects benefits from assignment and creditor claims, and authorizes the Department to execute judgments and garnish property, bank accounts, wages, and other assets to collect amounts owed under the chapter.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s history is strongly supportive. HB 128 passed the House unanimously 40-0 and the Senate unanimously 20-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on the need to refine and administer the paid leave program. The substitute version also suggests a consensus-oriented approach, preserving core program structure while adding operational clarifications and enforcement tools.
The main points of contention appear to have been resolved in the substitute. The synopsis notes that the substitute removed a proposed change to the application year and benefit period, which indicates that those timing changes were likely debated but ultimately not included. Other notable policy choices include the prohibition on requiring PTO exhaustion before PFML access, the addition of child support garnishment, and the expanded collection/enforcement provisions, all of which affect employees, employers, the Department of Labor, and child support enforcement agencies.
This bill amends Chapter 37 of Title 19, Delaware’s paid family and medical leave law, by changing benefit coordination rules, private-plan administration, enforcement mechanisms, and program governance. It affects employees receiving PFML benefits, employers participating in the state plan or approved private plans, the Delaware Department of Labor, and child support enforcement agencies. It also creates new statutory procedures for withholding child support from benefits, collecting debts owed under the chapter, and protecting benefits from assignment and creditor claims.
The bill appears to have had very strong support and little visible opposition. It passed both chambers unanimously, and the substitute version reflects compromise and refinement rather than a divisive policy shift. The discussion implied by the synopsis suggests lawmakers were focused on implementation details and administrative clarity, not on whether the paid leave program should exist.
The most notable areas of contention were operational and procedural rather than ideological. The synopsis indicates the substitute dropped a change to the application year and a shift from a 24-month benefit period to a 12-month period, suggesting disagreement over benefit timing and duration. Other debated issues likely included whether employers could require employees to use accrued PTO before PFML benefits, how private-plan employers should report claims to the Department, and how aggressively the state should enforce collection of amounts owed through garnishment and execution remedies. The bill’s final form reflects a compromise that preserved the existing program structure while tightening administration and enforcement.