An Act to amend and reenact §§ 2.2-3900, 2.2-3901, 2.2-3902, 2.2-3904, 2.2-3905, and 2.2-3909 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Virginia Human Rights Act; menopause or perimenopause; discrimination prohibited; reasonable accommodations; report.
HB1173, as introduced in the bill text and reflected in the caption, addresses menopause and perimenopause in the workplace and under the Virginia Human Rights Act. The substitute bill directs the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, working with the Commissioner of Health, to study menopause- and perimenopause-related issues in employment settings, including workplace accommodations, existing policies, health insurance coverage, therapeutic treatments, access to health care professionals, awareness policies, and the use of health care spending accounts for related benefits and services.
The study is also tasked with developing best practices for menopause-related and perimenopause-related accommodations in employment environments. The commissioners must report findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by July 1, 2028, and publish the report on the Department of Labor and Industry’s website. The bill’s caption indicates that the broader measure would amend the Virginia Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination and require reasonable accommodations related to menopause or perimenopause, but the text provided here is limited to the study directive in the substitute.
In terms of legal impact, the substitute text itself does not immediately change employer obligations or create new enforcement provisions; instead, it initiates a state study that could inform future legislation, agency guidance, or workplace policy. It would involve the Department of Labor and Industry and the Department of Health in evaluating how existing laws and benefits address menopause-related needs, with potential implications for employment practices, health coverage, and workplace accommodation standards.
The general sentiment suggested by the bill materials is policy interest in recognizing menopause and perimenopause as workplace and health issues worthy of state study and possible future protections. The fact that the bill was vetoed by the Governor indicates that, despite legislative movement, the measure did not ultimately become law. No committee transcript or vote data is provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials to show support or opposition beyond the veto outcome.
The main point of contention appears to be whether the Commonwealth should move beyond study and toward explicit legal protections or accommodations for menopause and perimenopause in employment. The caption’s reference to discrimination and reasonable accommodations suggests a broader civil-rights policy debate, while the substitute text takes a more limited, information-gathering approach. Likely stakeholders include employees experiencing menopause or perimenopause, employers, insurers, and policymakers considering the scope of workplace accommodation and health coverage requirements.
The substitute bill would not directly amend workplace rights or impose new duties in the text provided; instead, it requires a state study by the Commissioners of Labor and Industry and Health on menopause and perimenopause in employment, related accommodations, insurance coverage, treatments, access to care, awareness policies, and health spending accounts. The study could shape future changes to the Virginia Human Rights Act, employer accommodation standards, and related health-benefit policies, but the immediate legal effect is limited to reporting and best-practice development.
The available materials suggest generally supportive or at least serious policy interest in addressing menopause and perimenopause as workplace issues, since the bill directs a formal state study and best-practice recommendations. At the same time, the bill’s veto shows that the proposal did not secure final executive approval. Because no committee transcripts or vote breakdowns are provided, the record here does not show detailed floor or committee sentiment beyond the existence of the veto and the bill’s movement toward study rather than immediate regulation.
The likely contention centers on whether menopause and perimenopause should be treated as protected conditions requiring explicit legal accommodations and anti-discrimination rules, or whether the state should first study the issue before mandating changes. Supporters would likely emphasize workplace fairness, health needs, and access to accommodations and coverage; opponents may have questioned the need for new policy, the scope of employer obligations, or the appropriateness of expanding human-rights protections without further evidence. The veto suggests the executive branch did not agree with the bill’s approach, though the provided record does not specify the rationale.