A BILL to amend and reenact § 2.2-3905 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 17 of Title 58.1 an article numbered 13, consisting of a section numbered 58.1-1749, relating to corporate welfare tax.
HB243 would make two major changes to Virginia law. First, it amends the state’s employment nondiscrimination statute to expand and clarify protections against discrimination in hiring, firing, referral, apprenticeship, training, advertising, and retaliation. The bill also expressly prohibits employers from asking job applicants whether they receive certain means-tested federal benefits. The protected categories and exceptions in the bill largely track existing civil rights law, but the measure broadens the statute’s definitions and coverage in several places, including domestic workers and certain smaller employers for discharge claims.
Second, the bill creates a new “corporate welfare tax” in Title 58.1. Under that tax, large employers—defined as those averaging at least 500 employees—would owe a tax equal to 100 percent of the value of specified federal benefits received by their employees who live in Virginia. The bill defines those benefits to include SNAP, school lunch and breakfast assistance, housing assistance, and Medicaid-related payments. It also requires large employers to file quarterly employment rosters and directs the Department of Taxation to coordinate with the Department of Social Services to identify employees receiving those benefits.
If enacted, HB243 would significantly alter Virginia’s employment discrimination framework by expanding statutory protections and adding a new restriction on employer inquiries into applicants’ public benefit status. It would also create a new tax regime aimed at large employers, with reporting and data-matching obligations for state agencies and employers. The bill would affect employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, apprenticeship programs, and large businesses with 500 or more employees, while also implicating state tax administration and social services data sharing.
The available legislative history suggests the bill did not advance far and was not the subject of recorded debate in the materials provided. Its last action was a voice-vote continuance to the next session in the Finance Committee, which indicates procedural hesitation rather than clear approval or rejection. Overall, the posture of the bill appears neutral-to-unfavorable in committee, with no recorded floor votes or transcript support to show broader consensus.
The central point of contention is the proposed corporate welfare tax, which would effectively tax employers based on the public benefits received by their workers. Supporters would likely frame it as shifting costs from taxpayers to large employers, while opponents would likely view it as punitive, administratively complex, and intrusive because it requires employer reporting and state data matching. A second likely area of dispute is the expanded employment nondiscrimination language, especially the prohibition on asking applicants about federal benefits and the broader coverage of smaller employers and domestic workers. The bill’s use of social-services data and its potential impact on hiring practices and business costs are the most likely flashpoints.