A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 30-9.1, relating to employment discrimination against members of the General Assembly; prohibition; penalty.
Summary
HB1364 would add a new section to the Code of Virginia prohibiting employers from taking adverse employment action against a member of the General Assembly because of absences from work caused by attendance at a regular or special legislative session, or at meetings of legislative committees, subcommittees, commissions, councils, or other entities on which the legislator serves. The bill also bars employers from requiring the legislator to use sick leave or vacation time for those absences.
The measure creates a criminal penalty for violations: an employer who violates the section would be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. In practical terms, the bill is intended to protect legislators’ jobs and leave balances when official legislative duties conflict with private employment obligations.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a new employment protection in Virginia law specifically for members of the General Assembly, limiting employer discipline, discharge, and leave deductions tied to legislative service. It would add a new Code section, § 30-9.1, and expose employers to misdemeanor liability for noncompliance. The bill would affect private and public employers of legislators, while leaving intact the underlying obligation of legislators to attend official sessions and meetings.
Sentiment
The available legislative history shows little recorded debate or formal vote detail, but the bill’s progression to continuation in the Rules Committee and placement in studies subcommittee status suggests it was treated cautiously and did not advance quickly. The text itself reflects a protective, pro-legislator policy approach, and there is no evidence in the provided record of organized opposition or amendment activity. Overall, the sentiment appears neutral to favorable toward shielding legislators from employment consequences tied to public service.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting elected officials’ ability to serve and an employer’s authority to manage attendance, leave, and discipline. Critics could object to the bill’s broad restriction on adverse personnel actions and the requirement that employers absorb absences without charging leave, especially for part-time legislators with outside employment. Supporters would likely emphasize that legislative service should not cost members their jobs or personal leave, and that the criminal penalty is necessary to ensure compliance.