Hawaii House Bill HB1268

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 1/27/25
• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/27/25

Caption

RELATING TO FAMILY LEAVE.

Summary

HB1268, titled the Partner Leave Equality Act, would expand Hawaii’s family leave law to cover domestic partners and the children of domestic partners. Under current law, employees may take family leave to care for a child, spouse, reciprocal beneficiary, sibling, grandchild, or parent with a serious health condition, and the bill would add domestic partner and a domestic partner’s child to that list. It also clarifies that the bill applies without regard to gender. The bill creates a detailed statutory definition of “domestic partner.” To qualify, the partners must live in a spouse-like relationship, intend to remain together indefinitely, share a common residence, be jointly responsible for basic living expenses, be unmarried and not in another reciprocal beneficiary or domestic partnership, not be related in a way that would bar marriage in Hawaii, be at least 18 and mentally competent, and have entered the relationship without force, duress, or fraud. When leave is requested, the employee must sign a notarized declaration attesting to those criteria under penalty of perjury.

Impact

HB1268 would amend chapter 398, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by expanding the definitions of family members covered by family leave and by adding a new legal definition of domestic partnership for purposes of leave eligibility. It would also revise notice requirements so that foreseeable leave for a domestic partner or a domestic partner’s child is treated the same as leave for other covered family members. If enacted, employers would need to accept domestic-partner-based leave requests that meet the bill’s criteria, and employees would gain broader access to four weeks of family leave per calendar year for caregiving purposes.

Sentiment

The available record suggests the bill was introduced as a pro-expansion family leave measure and was framed in supportive terms, emphasizing fairness for committed couples who are not married or reciprocal beneficiaries. The report title and description also present the measure as an expansion of leave rights rather than a restriction or administrative change. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are available in the provided material, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the bill’s new eligibility rules and verification requirements. The definition of domestic partner is fairly detailed and could be viewed as either necessary to prevent abuse or as burdensome for employees and employers, especially because it requires a notarized declaration and proof of a spouse-like relationship, shared residence, and financial interdependence. Another likely issue is whether extending leave to domestic partners and their children should be limited to relationships meeting these specific criteria, since the bill excludes unmarried partners who do not satisfy the statutory definition. No specific objections or supporters are recorded in the provided history, but these are the most likely areas of debate.