Wisconsin Senate Bill SB1001

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/26
• Refer: 2/12/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 103.10 (1) (a) 1., 103.10 (1) (a) 2., 103.10 (1m) and 103.10 (14) (b); to renumber and amend 103.10 (1) (a) (intro.); to amend 103.10 (1) (b), 103.10 (1) (c), 103.10 (3) (a) 1., 103.10 (3) (a) 3., 103.10 (3) (b) 1., 103.10 (3) (b) 2., 103.10 (3) (b) 3., 103.10 (6) (b) (intro.), 103.10 (6) (b) 1., 103.10 (7) (a), 103.10 (7) (b) (intro.), 103.10 (7) (b) 1., 103.10 (12) (c), 103.10 (14) (a), 103.12 (2), 103.12 (3), 111.322 (2m) (a), 111.322 (2m) (b) and 227.03 (2); to repeal and recreate 165.68 (1) (a) 3.; to create 20.445 (1) (w), 25.17 (1) (er), 25.52, 103.10 (1) (an), 103.10 (1) (ao), 103.10 (1) (db), 103.10 (1) (dm), 103.10 (1) (dp), 103.10 (1) (gm), 103.10 (1) (gr), 103.10 (1) (j), 103.10 (3) (b) 4., 103.10 (3) (b) 5., 103.10 (3) (b) 6., 103.10 (3) (b) 7., 103.10 (3) (b) 8., 103.10 (6) (c), 103.10 (7) (d), 103.10 (8m), 103.10 (11) (d), 103.10 (14) (c) and (d), 103.105 and 103.12 (4) of the statutes; Relating to: the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance program; family leave to care for a family member and for the active duty of a family member; the employers that must allow an employee to take family or medical leave; allowing a local government to adopt ordinances requiring employers to provide leave benefits; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; providing an exemption from rule-making procedures; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty. (FE)

Summary

SB1001 would create a new Wisconsin family and medical leave insurance program administered by the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and financed through payroll-style contributions beginning in 2027, with benefits available for qualifying leave beginning January 1, 2028. The bill would allow covered workers, including certain self-employed individuals who opt in, to receive up to 12 weeks of paid family or medical leave in an application year, with a higher 14-week aggregate cap for combined qualifying leave. Benefit amounts would replace 90% of lower weekly earnings and 50% of higher weekly earnings, up to the state average weekly wage. The bill also creates a dedicated trust fund, requires DWD rulemaking and outreach, and sets up claims, appeals, overpayment recovery, confidentiality, and anti-retaliation procedures. The bill also expands Wisconsin’s existing unpaid family and medical leave law. It broadens family leave reasons to include care for a wider range of relatives, leave related to a family member’s military deployment, and leave connected to domestic abuse, sexual abuse, or stalking. It increases leave durations for certain reasons, lowers the employer-size threshold for coverage from 50 employees to 50 employees on a permanent basis while including the state as an employer, and requires employers to restore returning workers to the same or a similar position and maintain health coverage. It further allows local governments to adopt more generous leave ordinances than state law, and it updates related employment discrimination and notice provisions. The bill’s impact on state law would be substantial. It would add a new paid leave entitlement and a new funding mechanism, amend multiple definitions and enforcement provisions in chapter 103, create a new trust fund and appropriation, and authorize DWD to administer a large new benefits program. It would also alter local preemption rules by allowing municipalities and counties to require more generous leave benefits, and it would affect public employers, private employers, self-employed individuals who opt in, and employees who qualify for leave under the expanded categories. Overall sentiment in the available context appears supportive of expanding leave protections and creating paid leave benefits, as reflected by the broad bipartisan-style list of legislative sponsors and cosponsors named in the bill text. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating that it did not secure final legislative approval. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so the available record does not show detailed floor or committee debate. The main points of contention likely center on cost, employer mandates, payroll contributions, and administrative complexity. The bill requires employee contributions, employer cost-sharing for larger employers, and a large general-fund transfer to seed the trust fund, which could raise concerns among opponents about fiscal impact and burdens on businesses. Supporters would likely emphasize expanded family caregiving rights, paid leave access, protections for victims of abuse, and coverage for military-related exigencies and self-employed workers.

Impact

SB1001 would significantly revise Wisconsin’s family and medical leave statutes by expanding qualifying leave reasons, increasing leave durations, lowering and clarifying employer coverage rules, and adding anti-retaliation and notice requirements. It would create a new paid family and medical leave insurance program in chapter 103, funded by employee and employer contributions and administered by DWD through a new trust fund. The bill also amends related employment discrimination provisions, confidentiality rules, and local government authority, including allowing local ordinances that provide more generous leave benefits than state law.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally favorable in concept among its sponsors, who include a large number of senators and representatives, suggesting broad political support for paid leave expansion and caregiving protections. At the same time, the bill’s failure to pass indicates that support was not sufficient for enactment. With no committee transcripts or vote tallies provided, the record does not show detailed public debate, but the structure of the bill suggests a mix of support for worker protections and concern about costs and implementation.

Contention

Likely areas of contention include the new payroll contribution system, employer cost-sharing, the $258.5 million general-fund transfer, and the administrative burden on DWD and employers. Business interests and opponents of mandated leave programs would likely object to the expanded leave obligations, especially for smaller employers and the inclusion of local ordinances that can exceed state standards. Supporters would likely focus on the broader family definitions, paid leave access, military deployment leave, and protections for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and stalking.