Virginia Human Rights Act; pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, causes of action. (HB67)

Introduced By

Del. Delores McQuinn (D-Richmond) with support from co-patrons Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church), and Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Virginia Human Rights Act; pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; causes of action. Provides that no employer may discharge any employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, including lactation. Currently, the protection against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions applies only to an employer employing more than five but fewer than 15 persons. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
12/04/2017Committee
12/04/2017Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/18 18100819D
12/04/2017Referred to Committee on General Laws
01/15/2018Impact statement from DPB (HB67)
02/05/2018Assigned GL sub: Subcommittee #2
02/07/2018Assigned GL sub: Subcommittee #2
02/08/2018Subcommittee recommends striking from docket (8-Y 0-N)
02/13/2018Left in General Laws

Comments

ACLU-VA Women's Rights and Reproductive Freedom, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU of Virginia strongly supports HB67. Virginia law currently creates a private right of action for employees that have been discharged by their employer for pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, so long as the employer employs more than five but less than fifteen people. HB67 would extend that right of action to all Virginia employees, regardless of how many people are employed by their employers, and clarifies that nursing mothers are protected from employment discrimination on the basis of lactation. This bill takes the first step in safeguarding all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination, regardless of the number of persons employed by the employer.

Mark Peterson writes:

The way the bill reads, it means that an employer, no matter how many few employees he has, cannot discharge an employee for the reasons cited. For a business with less than five employees, this would be too restrictive. They are too small to deal with the financial impacts of this bill. Recommend no vote. MDP 01/23/18