To amend section 5747.01 and to enact sections 4143.01, 4143.02, 4143.03, 4143.04, 4143.05, 4143.06, 4143.07, 4143.08, 4143.09, 4143.10, 4143.11, 4143.12, 4143.13, 4143.14, 4143.15, 4143.16, 4143.17, and 4143.18 of the Revised Code to establish family and medical leave insurance benefits.
HB869 would create a new state-administered family and medical leave insurance program in Ohio. The bill establishes eligibility rules, qualifying leave reasons, benefit calculations, application procedures, employer notice requirements, appeal rights, anti-retaliation protections, and a dedicated fund and premium structure to finance the program. Covered leave reasons include an employee’s own serious health condition, care for a new child, care for a family member with a serious health condition, pregnancy-related miscarriage or stillbirth, qualifying military exigencies, and care for a covered service member or veteran.
The bill also directs the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to administer the program, adopt implementing rules, publish annual reports, and run a public education effort. It sets the weekly benefit at 85% of average weekly wage, capped at 90% of the statewide average weekly wage, with up to 18 weeks of benefits per application year and special pregnancy-related leave provisions. Premium collection would begin in 2028, with employee payroll deductions and, for larger employers, an additional employer contribution; the bill also allows some self-employed individuals to opt in and permits employers to provide equivalent benefits directly under state oversight.
HB869 would add a new Chapter 4143 to the Revised Code and amend section 5747.01 to exclude Chapter 4143 benefits from Ohio adjusted gross income when included in federal income. It would create a new family and medical leave insurance fund outside the state treasury, authorize premium collection and penalties for noncompliance, and impose new employer notice, reinstatement, and anti-discrimination obligations. The bill would also affect public employers, collective bargaining agreements, and certain independent contractors and self-employed workers who elect coverage, while giving the Department of Job and Family Services broad rulemaking and enforcement authority.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Insurance Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to expand worker leave protections and income support for family and medical needs, suggesting a generally pro-worker and pro-family policy direction. Because there is no transcript or vote history here, there is no documented public sentiment from committee debate to indicate support or opposition beyond the bill’s structure and sponsors.
The main likely points of contention are financing, employer cost, and administrative burden. Employers with 15 or more employees would have to remit premiums, and all employers would have payroll withholding and notice obligations, which may draw concern from business groups. Another possible issue is the scope of covered leave and eligibility, including domestic partners, broad family definitions, pregnancy-related leave, military-related leave, and the ability of employees to receive benefits even if they are working another job. The bill also limits employer participation in appeals and restricts waiver of rights, which may be viewed as strengthening employee protections at the expense of employer flexibility.