Discrimination in the workplace—either in employment, promotion, job assignments, pay, benefits, discipline, discharge, and layoffs—is illegal in the United States. Research shows that actions taken to reduce discrimination not only improve equity but also support economic growth. Federal law defines workplace discrimination on the basis of a worker’s membership in designated protected classes, with the rationale that disparate treatment violates the law when it would not have happened to an individual “but for” that aspect of their identity. These protected classes are enshrined by legislation and include the following:

• Race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
• Age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
• Disability (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
• Genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008)

The extent to which these protected classes can be expanded is subject to legal interpretation. For example, over time, the definition of “sex discrimination” has been amended to explicitly include disparate treatment related to pregnancy and childbirth with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity following Supreme Court decisions in 2020.

In addition to protection from unjust unequal treatment, federal law also protects workers from retaliation for filing discrimination claims or from beginning the process of filing a discrimination claim. These federal laws cover most employees whether they work full time or part time and irrespective of citizenship status. Employers with 20 or more employees are required to comply with all nondiscrimination laws at the federal level; employers with less than 20 employees are still subject to many nondiscrimination standards, though standards are less stringent.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the independent federal agency responsible for investigating claims of employment discrimination at the federal level and for enforcing federal workplace nondiscrimination law. The EEOC does this both by fielding discrimination claims against employers and by requiring annual reports from employers on employment outcomes by protected class characteristics to assess potential patterns of discrimination.

What are the threats to federal workplace nondiscrimination protections?

Current threats to workplace nondiscrimination protections include:

• Executive actions constraining EEOC’s mission and functions: Since taking office, Trump has undermined or limited key functions of the EEOC by:
  • Illegally firing two of the three commissioners and the general counsel, leaving the Commission unable to alter policy or vote on rulemaking for several months. In October 2025, the Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as an EEOC commissioner, establishing a three-person quorum. With a quorum in place, the EEOC will likely rescind their 2024–2028 strategic enforcement plan, guidance on arrest and conviction records, and EEO-1 reporting requirements. Additionally, the agency will likely move forward with announced plans to significantly revise its Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Rule and Harassment Guidance.  
  • Imposing new limits on the collection of data necessary to accurately assess discriminatory impact by shortening annual reporting periods and removing nonbinary gender reporting entirely from forms used to collect demographic data from private employers and federal contractors.
  • Directing the EEOC to focus more on so-called “DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination and anti-American national origin bias and discrimination.”
• Politicizing the EEOC and constraining independent state and local agencies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has repeatedly affirmed her commitment to restructuring the EEOC’s priorities toward those of the administration, rather than enforcing anti-discrimination law as an independent federal agency. In an effort to impose the administration’s agenda on state and local enforcement agencies, Lucas has proposed changes that would weaponize the funding relationship between those agencies and the EEOC. While state and local agencies operate independently, they receive funding from the EEOC in the form of reimbursements for jointly filed cases they take on behalf of the federal agency. With the exception of a few large states, such as New York or California, most states significantly rely on this funding to cover their operational costs. Since serving as acting chair, Lucas has reversed course on the EEOC’s enforcement of disparate impact and sex discrimination cases by:
  • Withholding funding for state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs) that choose to take on cases concerning gender identity discrimination.
  • Threatening to decertify state and local FEPAs that draw conclusions on gender identity and disparate impact charges that differ from those of the EEOC.
  • Instructing the agency to close charges that solely concern disparate impact by September 30, 2025, without developing them for litigation or for conciliation.
• Diminished EEOC enforcement capacity: The extent to which workers are protected from workplace discrimination at the federal level is dependent on the EEOC’s capacity to monitor employment practices, investigate claims of workplace discrimination, and reliably enforce sanctions against employers who violate nondiscrimination law. But for decades, inadequate funding and staffing has limited the EEOC’s capacity to investigate and resolve charges in a timely manner. Actions of the second Trump administration further exacerbate these problems:
  • In March 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced plans to close and consolidate EEOC field offices. Once the EEOC reestablishes a quorum, the agency may begin these closures, which threaten the job security of EEOC field staff and further constrain their enforcement capacity.
  • The EEOC plans to break up its data analytics office, signaling that robust data collection and analysis—critical tools for enforcement and assessing charges—will be less of a priority for the agency. Rolling back data collection is a step toward the Project 2025 prescribed goal of ending EEO-1 data collection.
• Executive actions attacking nondiscrimination law: The Trump administration has prohibited the consideration of disparate impact liability in discrimination claims, making it more difficult to hold employers accountable for unfair employment practices and outcomes without being able to prove that employers explicitly intended to discriminate (including efforts to hold companies accountable for AI-driven algorithmic bias).  

While many threats are coming directly from the federal level, workplace nondiscrimination protections are also under threat in states that have chosen to follow the lead of the White House in passing anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) laws. Many states have already closed DEI-related offices and initiatives, cut funding to programs, and restricted the use of language and consideration of protected classes in higher education. While these actions do not remove existing workplace nondiscrimination laws, workers in those states could be left without recourse if legislative trends continue and federal nondiscrimination protections continue to deteriorate.

How can states maintain and strengthen workplace nondiscrimination protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own employment discrimination laws that provide more expansive coverage than federal law. States can provide legal protections for more traits or characteristics, lower the minimum employment threshold required to file a discrimination claim, and extend the window of time employees have to file a claim after the alleged discriminatory incident occurred.

Many states and local governments have Fair Employment Practices Agencies{{1}} that investigate workplace discrimination claims in accordance with state and local nondiscrimination law, often in concert with field offices of the federal EEOC. FEPAs may have authority to enforce state or local standards for nondiscrimination that exceed those laid out by the federal government. Workers who believe they have been discriminated against can file a claim with the EEOC and/or their state or local FEPA, depending on the standards being violated, the types of relief available to victims, the deadlines for filing charges, or other factors related to the claim. The Trump administration is actively working to undermine the independence of FEPAs by weaponizing their funding arrangement, particularly on enforcement of disparate impact and gender identity discrimination protections. For state agencies that rely on federal funding for a significant share of their operating budget, these changes present serious challenges to their ability to properly maintain and expand enforcement capacity.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections 

Most states have passed state-level employment discrimination laws that codify employment discrimination protections for at least the same protected classes that are federally protected. Today, 24 states and Washington, D.C., have discrimination laws that cover a more expansive range of protected traits than federal law. However, 19 states, including Idaho, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, offer less protection than federal laws. Alabama’s employment discrimination law is by far the least comprehensive, as it only protects against age discrimination from 40 years of age.  

Other states have enacted certain discrimination laws that only protect public employees. For example, Georgia’s discrimination laws have mixed levels of protection based on the sector of employment. Protections for discrimination against race, color, religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity are only extended to public-sector employees. Private-sector employees are provided protections for disability and equal pay discrimination. Similarly, Mississippi’s employment discrimination laws only apply to public employees.  

States typically have a commission or division dedicated to enforcing state nondiscrimination laws. Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi do not have their own state agency and solely rely on the EEOC for anti-discrimination enforcement. Additionally, North Carolina does not have an agency where private employees can file discrimination claims.

As the Trump administration makes it easier for employers to discriminate by weakening the federal EEOC, failure to cover private employers under state law and a lack of state level enforcement capacity will leave even more workers in those states without recourse. States can—and should—act to plug these gaps by, at a minimum:

• Ensuring their state code includes at least all the protected classes covered in federal nondiscrimination law;
• Ensuring state nondiscrimination laws cover all workers (in both public and private sectors) and mirror federal employment minimum thresholds for coverage; and
• Establishing and adequately funding a state commission or division with enforcement authority that, at minimum, mirrors federal policies for filing deadlines.

Step II: Include additional protections already implemented in other states 

• Extend protections to additional traits: Most states have extended protections for marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. While states may be financially disincentivized to pursue cases concerning gender identity discrimination, there is currently no threat to simply extending legal protections. Some states have also incorporated additional traits such as reproductive health decision-making, medical conditions, status as a victim of domestic violence, housing status, arrest/court/conviction record, and military or veteran status as protected traits (see Figure A). Additionally, several states including New York and Oregon and D.C. have lowered the age limit to be considered for age discrimination.  
• Codify inclusive definitions for protected traits to fortify employment nondiscrimination protections: Many states include definitions of protected traits that better encompass the types of discrimination employees may face. For example, since 2019, the CROWN Act has been adopted by states across the nation to include hair discrimination as a form of racial discrimination. More than half of U.S. states have passed the CROWN Act and eight states have defined race-based discrimination to include discrimination based on traits associated with race in their state code. 

Figure A

Step III: Modernize nondiscrimination policies by extending and locking in coverage across classes of workers and collecting comprehensive data

• Extend coverage to contract workers: Independent contractors are not considered employees, so they may not be inherently covered by employment discrimination laws. As of 2019, only four states (Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island) protect independent contractors from discrimination protection, while 24 states and D.C. explicitly exclude them. Extending discrimination protections to independent contractors is important as they have significantly less labor protections than employees. Additionally, states could explicitly enforce anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity laws for state contract workers to ensure fair employment practices among private employers that conduct business with the state. In a climate with increased hostility against those who are not white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender, it is imperative that the classification of a worker does not dictate the rights they have to protect themselves from discrimination.
• Emphasize protections for workers regardless of their citizenship and immigration status: Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, and employees are protected by Equal Employment Opportunity statutes regardless of citizenship or immigration status. Given changing federal treatment of immigrants, states should emphasize and enforce fair treatment regardless of documentation status to ensure workers remain protected. They should also strengthen anti-retaliation protections and practices.  
• Collect employment and pay data at the state level: Federally, the EEOC requires employers with more than 100 employees to submit an annual report (the EEO-1 form) providing critical workforce demographic data. With the future of federal data collection at risk, states should seek to collect their own equal employment data, including pay data, to support anti-discrimination enforcement mechanisms. Currently, only three (California, Illinois, Massachusetts) states require employers to submit this data.

Additional recommended resources 

• Trump is making it easier for employers to discriminate. This stifles equity and hurts economic growth. (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Trump-led attacks on equity are setting the stage for our next public health crisis (Economic Policy Institute) 
• Trump’s assault on independent agencies endangers us all (Economic Policy Institute and The Century Foundation) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section and include updates on federal and state policy developments that took place after initial publication

{{1.}} These agencies are often referred to as commissions on civil rights, human rights, human relations, etc. See a list of agencies here: University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets guidelines for the hours and nonhazardous jobs for which employers can hire minors under 16. The FLSA also empowers the Secretary of Labor to prohibit all minor employment in occupations that are particularly dangerous through “hazardous occupations orders.” It covers employers that conduct at least $500,000 in annual sales or any employees engaged in interstate commerce (this coverage is interpreted broadly with respect to child labor—if a firm engages in any form of interstate commerce, its minor workers are covered). Federal law sets an important but limited and increasingly outdated floor for child labor standards. For example, federal child labor standards in agriculture are much weaker than in nonagricultural employment, hazardous occupations orders have not been updated in decades, and there are no work hours protections for minors over the age of 15 (see Table 1).

Table 1

What are the threats to federal child labor standards?

Threats to federal child labor standards include federal proposals to weaken child labor protections and ongoing state-level efforts to erode the FLSA by proposing or enacting state child labor legislation that conflicts with federal law:

• Project 2025, the anti-worker policy roadmap being implemented by the Trump administration, proposes:
  1.  Eliminating federal hazardous occupations orders, which protect minors from employment in particularly dangerous jobs, like mining and roofing; and
  2. Allowing states to obtain waivers from the FLSA—including provisions that prevent harmful forms of child labor.

• In recent years, a coordinated, industry-backed campaign to erode child labor standards has generated proposals in dozens of states to weaken or eliminate state standards exceeding the minimal federal “floor” for child labor protections. Some state lawmakers have gone even further, proposing or enacting bills that directly conflict with federal minimum standards, while stating intent to build pressure for the eventual relaxation or elimination of FLSA standards for the whole country. Common targets for these attacks on state child labor standards include:
  • Eliminating youth work permits
  • Eliminating hours of work guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds
  • Eliminating meal or rest break requirements for minors
  • Expanding employers’ ability to hire minors for previously prohibited hazardous jobs
  • Lowering the age at which minors can serve alcohol and/or work in establishments serving alcohol
  • Establishing or expanding laws that allow employers to pay students or other youth a subminimum wage
  • Creating new exemptions from state child labor protections, for example for homeschooled youth or youth in certain occupations
  • Creating new systems—such as unregulated “internship” or “work-based learning” programs—that allow employers to skirt child labor laws or hire minors for otherwise prohibited hazardous work

By repeatedly proposing—and in some cases implementing—standards that conflict with federal law, these states are chipping away at the already fragile federal floor for workplace protections.

How can states maintain and strengthen child labor protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own child labor standards; the FLSA sets a floor above which states can adopt and enforce their own stronger standards.

States have historically played a prominent role in setting child labor standards—some states have protections in place that predate the FLSA, and many have long legislated above federal law. Other states maintain standards that generally mirror the FLSA, with few additional protections, and some states have standards that are significantly weaker than the FLSA. In many cases, a state’s standards are stronger than the FLSA in some areas and weaker in others. When a state standard is weaker than the FLSA, federal law applies. However, since only federal agencies can enforce federal laws, state laws that fall short of federal law increase the risk of federal violations while shifting the enforcement burden to already-overburdened federal agencies. Amid Trump administration attacks, federal agencies are now facing even more pronounced staffing shortages that will further limit their enforcement capacity.

In response to increasing child labor violations, many states are already taking action to strengthen state child labor standards and enforcement. Given the very real risk that aspects of FLSA child labor protections could be eliminated (or will go unenforced), all states should at a minimum lock in existing FLSA standards and ensure state capacity to enforce them. Beyond this, states have critical opportunities and responsibilities to modernize child labor standards beyond the minimal, outdated FLSA floor to ensure that minors who must work or choose to work can access safe work experiences that don’t harm their health or education. Fortunately, state lawmakers have an array of options to consider and tested legislative models to use as a guide.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections.

State standards should be at least as strong as those in the FLSA. Ensuring that state standards mirror FLSA minimums protects both employers and children from the risks and confusion that arise when state standards contradict federal law. For example, after a Utah employer was fined for violating federal child labor law for incorrectly following state child labor guidelines that were weaker than FLSA standards, Utah enacted a bill to align state guidelines on hours of work for minors under 16 with FLSA standards.

Weaker standards often appear in areas of state code covering work hours or prohibited hazardous occupations. For example:

• Idaho allows employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds up to nine hours a day or 54 hours per week. Federal law allows employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds up to three hours a day or 18 hours per week in a school week and up to eight hours per day and 40 hours per week in a nonschool week.
• Iowa allows employers to hire 14-year-olds in industrial laundries and 15-year-olds in light assembly work, among other weaker standards. Federal law does not permit 14–15-year-olds to work in these settings.
• West Virginia allows employers to hire 16–17-year-olds enrolled in a “youth apprenticeship program” for all 17 hazardous occupations prohibited for minors under federal law. Federal law allows 16–17-year-olds to perform certain types of intermittent work in only seven of these occupations when enrolled in a bona fide registered apprenticeship program meeting certain stringent standards.

State policymakers should review their child labor statutes alongside federal child labor laws to identify areas of weakness. At a minimum, states should ensure that their guidelines for hours of work and hazardous occupations orders are at least as protective as the FLSA.

Step II: Close coverage gaps and address weaknesses in FLSA minimum protections

States can address many longstanding limitations and gaps in federal child labor protections. Examples of priority actions for state lawmakers to consider include:

1. Maintain effective youth work permit systems: Youth work permits have been shown to reduce child labor violations and aid in enforcement. The FLSA suggests—but does not require—that employers maintain certificates confirming the age of minors they employ. It also does not require minors to receive a permit as a condition of employment. Instead, youth work permit policies have historically been left to states. Most states already have some sort of permit system in place. Youth work permits are often simple, one-page forms that engage employers, parents, youth, and sometimes educators, in ensuring a child’s employment is legal, safe, and age-appropriate. Permits remind employers of existing child labor laws, inform parents of their child’s rights and affirm their consent, and aid state agencies in investigations of potential violations. States without work permit systems should implement them and states with existing work permit systems should assess and modernize their systems, as recently done in Illinois and New York and proposed in California.
2. Implement or expand work hour guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds: The FLSA sets standards to protect children from excessive hours of work, especially during the school year. However, the FLSA was passed at a time when fewer than half of students completed high school, and its hours of work guidelines have never been updated to cover older minors (16- and 17-year-olds). In the absence of state standards, older teens can be scheduled to work unlimited hours per day or per week, including during school weeks. Some states have already adopted standards to address this gap, but fewer than half of states have hours guidelines in place for older teens. States should set maximum daily and weekly work hours for 16–17-year-olds and prohibit overnight work during the school week. Minimum standards should include limiting employers to scheduling 16–17-year-olds for no more than 32 hours in a school week, as nine states already do,{{1}} and prohibiting employers from scheduling 16–17-year-olds to work after 10 p.m. or before 6 a.m. (or similar), as 20 states and D.C. already do.{{2}}
3. Update prohibitions on hazardous child labor: The FLSA prohibits minors under 18 from working in a list of 17 nonagricultural occupations and 11 agricultural occupations that have been found to be particularly hazardous for minors. Many of these hazardous occupations orders have never been updated. And new orders have not been created to account for new forms of hazards in our modern economy, particularly in agriculture. Moreover, the FLSA opens the door to dangerous exemptions from some hazardous orders,{{3}} with language that allows student apprentices and learners enrolled in approved training programs to do certain types of hazardous work under close supervision. State lawmakers can update prohibitions on hazardous child labor by expanding existing hazardous orders, creating new orders to cover hazardous occupations not covered under federal law, and ending student learner and apprentice exemptions. Lawmakers can use the 2002 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommendations to the U.S. Department of Labor as a guide for revising state hazardous orders. For example, Illinois recently updated and clarified state law to prohibit employment of minors in hazardous workplaces not covered under federal law, such as gun ranges and establishments primarily involved in the sale of tobacco or alcohol.
4. Extend equal protections to children working in agricultural occupations: Agriculture is the most dangerous sector of employment for minors, yet federal child labor standards remain much weaker in agriculture than in nonagricultural industries. State lawmakers can address this longstanding gap in federal law by aligning agricultural child labor standards for work hours and hazardous work with standards for nonfarm work. For example, in 2025, New Jersey lawmakers introduced a bill to raise the minimum age for agricultural employment to 14 and align work hours and hazardous work protections in agriculture with nonagricultural standards, among other updates to protections for farmworkers of all ages.
5. Increase civil penalties to deter violations and update them based on inflation: Under most existing state penalty structures, civil monetary penalties for child labor violations are very limited and, in some cases, nonexistent. Some states levy no civil penalties at all, and many states have not reviewed or updated penalty amounts in decades. In Indiana, for example, penalties range from a warning letter for an initial violation to a maximum of only $400 for a fourth violation within two years. Low or nonexistent penalties that can easily be absorbed as a “cost of doing business” do not deter employer violations and leave state enforcement agencies with few tools for ensuring compliance by bad actors. To ensure penalties serve as effective deterrents and enforcement tools, state lawmakers should set meaningful minimum penalties for first offenses and very high maximum penalties for serious or repeat offenses, as Illinois did in 2024. States can use federal civil penalties and annual adjustments as a benchmark; for example, current federal maximum civil penalties for a child labor violation range from $16,035 to $145,752, and rates are adjusted for inflation each year.
6. Strengthen state enforcement capacity and authority: Ensuring adequate state enforcement of child labor laws will become particularly important as federal enforcement capacity is diminished.
   • States should ensure funding for dedicated child labor enforcement staff so as not to take resources away from other wage and hour investigations. For example, a Virginia lawmaker recently requested an increased budget appropriation for child labor enforcement.
   • States should grant labor agencies sufficient authority to fulfill enforcement goals. For example, Nebraska recently enacted a bill that gives its labor agency power to subpoena records from employers suspected of violating the law.
7. Eliminate youth subminimum wages: The FLSA allows workers under age 20 to be paid as little as $4.25 per hour for their first 90 days of employment and allows employers to pay a lower minimum wage to full-time students in certain occupations, student learners, and apprentices. In recent years, some states have taken action to close these gaps so that all workers—regardless of their age—have a right to the minimum wage. All states should follow suit.

Step III: Modernize child labor standards to protect children’s health and wellbeing, safeguard their right to education, and improve their career prospects

The most effective child labor laws implement evidence-based guardrails to prevent excessive and hazardous work—as discussed above—alongside innovative policies to empower youth workers, deter violations, and provide meaningful redress and support to victims if violations occur. State lawmakers need not be bound by traditional areas of policy covered by the FLSA and can also:

1. Require workers’ rights education: If young workers do not know their rights, they will be less likely to report unsafe or illegal working conditions. States can invest in labor education to address this information gap. For example, California mandated that high schools annually teach students about workplace rights and the labor movement following a curriculum developed by the UC Berkeley Labor Center.
2. Mandate employer training on child labor laws and commitment to following the law: For example, Washington requires businesses who hire minors to obtain a special endorsement on their business license affirming compliance with child labor laws.
3. Encourage reporting by protecting whistleblowers and victims: Most labor investigations depend on worker reporting. Because young workers lack experience and knowledge about workplace rights and may fear employer retaliation, loss of wages, or immigration enforcement, many workplace abuses go unreported and uninvestigated. To address these enforcement challenges, state lawmakers should:
   1. Provide multiple avenues for child labor victims to be made whole after they report violations and risk losing their job. In most states, civil penalties for child labor violations are deposited into the state’s General Fund, and minors receive no compensation in the form of damages owed by the employer. Moreover, when a child is injured or killed on the job while employed illegally, they (or their family members in the event of the child’s death) are generally limited to the workers’ compensation system as their sole source of financial compensation. However, several states have enacted or proposed bills to make aggrieved minors eligible for additional compensation in the form of damages; for example, Colorado recently made it possible for minors who are injured while employed under illegal conditions to pursue private legal action and receive monetary damages.
   2. Enact whistleblower and anti-retaliation protections to protect workers who report labor abuses, as recently done in Minnesota.
   3. Remove provisions of state law that may discourage reporting of violations, such as those holding parents criminally responsible for allowing a child to be employed under illegal conditions, as Colorado recently did.
   4. Provide wraparound services to victims of illegal child labor to address root causes of excessive or hazardous work. For example, unaccompanied migrant youth should be provided with legal services, assistance in securing safe and age-appropriate work, and connections to community-based organizations or local government agencies that can provide additional supportive services.
4. Use innovative enforcement strategies to meaningfully hold employers accountable: Civil monetary penalties are a necessary but insufficient deterrent. State lawmakers should take a holistic approach to changing employer behavior and significantly increase the financial and reputational costs associated with breaking the law. They should:
   1. Use “hot goods” provisions and “stop work” orders to immediately disrupt the normal business of employers who are actively violating the law. “Hot goods” provisions allow courts to stop the flow of goods produced using illegal child labor and are currently in place federally. “Stop work” orders allow labor agencies to require the cessation of business until child labor violations are addressed, increasing the cost of violating the law. New Jersey permits such orders to be used when minimum wage violations are occurring.
   2. Bar violators from receiving public funding as proposed in Alabama, and implement other penalties, like revoking an employer’s permission to hire minors when they violate the law, as enacted in Washington.
   3. Create lead corporation accountability, so corporations are held jointly responsible for violations committed by their subcontractors or staffing agencies as proposed in a federal bill.
   4. Make employer violations data more accessible to the public—as recently mandated in Colorado—or publicly shame companies that violate the law by posting about violations on the state labor agency’s website—similar to New Jersey and New York.
   5. You can read more about these and other policies to address and deter violations here: Policies for states and localities to fight oppressive child labor.

Additional recommended resources 

• Child labor state legislation tracker (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Campaign to End US Child Labor 

• Child Labor Coalition at the National Consumers League 

• Federal child labor regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act  

• State child labor laws (U.S. Department of Labor; note that this page may not reflect all recent state legislative changes) 

• How states can stop the corporate campaign to roll back child labor protections (State Innovation Exchange and Economic Policy Institute) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section. 

{{1.}} Connecticut (32 hours), Florida (30), Kentucky (30), Maine (24), Michigan (24), New Hampshire (30), New York (28), Pennsylvania (28), Washington (20). See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor.

{{2.}} Alabama (10 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Arkansas (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), California (10 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Connecticut (10 or 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Florida (11 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.), Indiana (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Kentucky (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Louisiana (11 p.m. or 12 a.m. to 5 a.m.), Maine (10:15 a.m. to 7 a.m.), Massachusetts (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Michigan (11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Minnesota (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.), New Jersey (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), New York (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), North Carolina (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Ohio (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.), Pennsylvania (12 a.m. to 6 a.m.), Rhode Island (11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Tennessee (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Washington (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), and D.C. (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor.

{{3.}} Hazardous occupation (HO) 5. Power-driven woodworking machines; HO 8. Power-driven metal-forming, punching and shearing machines; HO 10. Power-driven meat-processing machines, slaughtering and meat packing plants; HO 12. Balers, compactors, and power-driven paper-products machines; HO 14. Power-driven circular saws, band saws, guillotine shears, chain saws, reciprocating saws, wood chippers, and abrasive cutting discs; HO 16. Roofing operations and work performed on or about a roof; HO 17. Trenching and excavation operations.

Being forced to make this impossible choice threatens workers’ economic and health security. Further, when workers go to work with a contagious illness, they are likely to spread disease to their coworkers and customers. When they are forced to send a sick child to school, they send contagion with them. This means lack of paid sick leave is a threat not only to a worker’s (and their family’s) own health, but also to the health of their community.

Over the last decade, 15 states and the District of Columbia have expanded labor protections to require employers to allow workers to earn paid sick time. In areas of the country with these new laws, workers have seen significant increases in access to paid sick time. Expanded coverage has particularly benefited low-wage workers—who were least likely to have access to paid sick leave before these policies went into effect. 

Our research finds:

• Lack of paid sick days is a real problem, particularly for low-wage workers. Three-quarters (78%) of private-sector workers overall currently have access to paid sick days. However, only 39% of workers in the bottom 10% of the wage distribution do.
• Lack of paid sick days deprives workers of funds needed for basic necessities. Without the ability to earn paid sick days, workers must choose between going to work sick (or sending a child to school sick) and losing much-needed pay. For the average worker without access to paid sick days, the costs of taking unpaid sick time can make a painful dent in their monthly budget, making it hard to pay for groceries (five days of unpaid sick time), utilities (three days of unpaid sick time), or gas (two days of unpaid sick time).
• Over the last decade, state-level laws providing the right to paid sick days have had a significant impact on access to paid sick days across the country. Paid sick time increased dramatically in parts of the country with paid sick time mandates. The Pacific region saw the highest access rate, at 94%. Across the country, access for the lowest-wage workers nearly doubled between 2010 and 2023.
• Paid sick leave is a wise investment for businesses, workers, and communities. Studies have shown that offering paid sick time adds little or nothing to a business’s expenses. Moreover, increased access to paid sick leave can in fact benefit businesses and the wider community by increasing productivity and job stability as well as reducing illness and transmission rates of infectious diseases.

Low-wage workers are less likely to have access to paid sick days

Approximately 78% of private-sector American workers currently have access to paid sick days, but this topline number masks the unequal distribution of this access among workers (BLS 2023a). Higher-wage workers have better access to most benefits, including paid sick days, than lower-wage workers.

Among the 10% of private-sector workers with the highest wages, 96% have access to paid sick days (Figure A). By contrast, among the 10% of workers with the lowest wages, only 39% have access to paid sick days. This skewed distribution of paid sick days is particularly troubling since low-wage workers are least able to absorb lost wages when they or their family members are sick.

Figure A

Research from other sources also shows that disparities in access occur by demographic group. A report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that Hispanic workers are least likely to have access to paid sick leave compared with other racial/ethnic groups (Bartel et al. 2019).

Access to paid sick days also varies significantly by occupation, work hours, union status, and employer size. As noted above, 78% of private-sector employees nationwide have access to paid sick days; that means 22%—more than 1 in 5 workers—cannot earn paid sick days. But even fewer have access in some occupations: only 61% of workers in service occupations—which tend to be low-wage occupations—have access to paid sick days (BLS 2023a). Far more full-time workers have access to paid sick time compared with part-time workers—87% versus 51%. Union workers are more likely to have access (86%) compared with nonunion workers (77%). And 89% of workers in large establishments (500 or more workers) have access as opposed to 71% of workers in small establishments (fewer than 50 workers).

“Presenteeism,” or working while sick, not only results in decreased productivity and increased risk of injury, but also poses a public health risk (Asfaw, Pana-Cryan, and Rosa 2012). This is particularly true in service occupations, and especially in the food services industry. Almost half of all restaurant-related foodborne illness outbreaks are attributed to employees coming to work while ill (Norton et al. 2015). In a survey of women working in the fast-food industry, 70% reported that at some point during the prior year they had gone to work despite displaying symptoms of illness, including coughing, sneezing, fever, diarrhea, or vomiting (National Partnership for Women & Families 2016a).

Further, for many workers in service-based jobs, pay can be tied to the volume of people they interact with (e.g., jobs with tipped wages). This means service workers often not only feel pressure to show up for work because they lack paid sick days, but they are also incentivized by their pay structure to interact with people, regardless of their health condition.

Although workers may want to stay home when they are sick, a 2010 survey by the National Opinion Research Center highlighted how difficult it was to do so. Nearly one-third of workers reported being threatened with job loss or outright losing their job for leaving work when sick (Smith and Kim 2010). Unsurprisingly, a 2018 study shows a strong association between workers without paid sick leave and higher levels of psychological distress relative to workers with access to paid sick leave (Stoddard-Dare et al. 2018).

We shouldn’t make workers choose between going to work sick or going without pay

Expanding access to paid sick days will mean stronger, healthier families. Without paid sick days, working parents are often forced to make the difficult choice between staying home with a sick child—and losing income—or going to work and possibly compromising their child’s health. When parents cannot take off work, children are sometimes sent to school ill, diminishing their learning experience and exposing other students, teachers, and staff to infection.{{1}}

When employees go to work sick, they endanger their own health and the health of their colleagues. They also may jeopardize their own safety and the quality of their work. At the same time, staying home and putting one’s own health first can result in overdue bills and not having enough food to eat. Earned paid sick days allow workers to avoid an unfair choice between going to work sick or going without pay (and maybe even losing a job).

Many workers do not need to take much, if any, sick time in a given month or year. But when illness strikes them or their family members, that paid time off is a physical and economic lifeline. CDC guidelines recommend five days of isolation for even a mild bout of COVID (CDC 2023a). People with flu are most contagious for three to four days, while those infected with RSV are typically contagious for three to eight days (CDC 2022, 2023b). To be clear, that’s the contagious period; it may take longer to fully recover from those infectious diseases or other illnesses.

COVID, flu, and RSV outbreaks have become routine in communities across the country. Even the healthiest among us have a reasonably high chance of contracting one of these illnesses at some point or another. Given that context, the economic and health risks of workers lacking paid sick days are enormous.

To assess the value of sick days for workers, in Table 1 we show the number of unpaid sick days that correspond to each monthly expenditure in a family budget. These calculations are based on the average monthly household expenditures on a selected set of goods for a household earning between $50,000 and $69,999 per year (BLS 2023c). This expenditure band was chosen because the average wage of workers without access to paid sick time is $15.50, and we assume two full-time workers per household (DHHS AHRQ 2023).{{2}}

Table 1

If a worker needs to take off even a half day due to illness, the lost wages take away most of the household’s monthly spending for fruits and vegetables; lost wages from taking off five days is nearly their entire grocery budget for the month. Two days of unpaid sick time are more than the equivalent of a month’s worth of gas, making it difficult to get to work, while an additional day not worked is nearly equivalent to a monthly car insurance premium.

Three days of unpaid sick time translate into the household’s monthly utilities budget, potentially cutting off electricity or heat to the family’s home. Taking three days to recuperate or to care for a sick family member means the worker may have difficulty paying for health insurance or keeping up with medical bills. Cutting back on health care at a time when it is most needed puts the worker’s family at further risk in the future in terms of both health and economic security.

This tradeoff—reduced income and risk of losing a job because of a short-term illness—does not arise for workers with adequate paid sick time. Because paid sick leave is often job-protected, access to paid sick leave has long been associated with increased job stability, enhancing workers’ economic security (Hill 2013). A related but different issue arises when workers face a lengthier illness; paid family and medical leave could help fill in these larger gaps, but unfortunately workers across the board are even less likely to earn that benefit (Appelbaum 2016). Even with another wage earner at home working full time, a household could lose the necessary monthly income to pay for their entire rent or mortgage if one worker is forced to take just eight days of sick time for a longer illness or recovery.

Many states now require employers to provide paid sick time

During the pandemic, Congress authorized, for the first time ever, federal emergency sick leave through the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The act required employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide up to two weeks of paid sick leave at full pay for illness, quarantine, or isolation related to COVID-19. Unfortunately, the tax credits used to reimburse employers for providing paid sick leave expired two years ago, and few policymakers seem intent on renewing it (DOL WHD 2021).

Some federal policymakers have repeatedly pushed for a national standard, such as the Healthy Families Act (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023b). The Healthy Families Act, first introduced in 2004, would (among other provisions) allow workers in workplaces with 15 or more employees to earn at least one hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours or seven days of paid sick time per year (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023b). Despite repeated introductions of the Healthy Families Act, most recently in May 2023, federal policymakers in favor of it have so far not been successful in passing it. The lack of a national standard for paid sick leave places the United States behind its international peers (Heymann et al. 2020).

Fortunately, many state and local policymakers understand the economic costs of workers losing pay if they are sick, as well as the public health risk of workers showing up to work sick. Currently, 15 states and the District of Columbia require employers to allow workers to accrue some minimum number of paid sick days. Additionally, 17 cities and four counties have moved ahead to provide paid sick days to eligible workers.

States with paid sick leave laws include Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023a). In addition, Minnesota enacted paid sick time protections in 2023, which will become effective in 2024 (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023a). In Missouri, a paid sick time initiative is expected to appear on the ballot in 2024 (Ballotpedia 2023).

While there is no federal paid sick leave law for workers in general, in 2016 federal contractors were mandated to provide paid sick leave to their employees. This impacted an estimated one million private-sector workers who were either newly eligible for paid sick leave or saw an increase in their sick leave allowance (Gould 2017).

More workers have access to paid sick time as states pass paid sick leave laws

Widespread advances in paid sick time protections in the states have corresponded with a dramatic increase in access. Since 2010, the share of private-sector workers in the U.S. with access to paid sick days has increased from 63% to 78%. Unsurprisingly, the gains in access were most pronounced in areas of the country where states mandated employers to provide those protections.

Figure B illustrates paid sick days access by Census division from 2010 to 2023.{{3}} The three blue lines indicate Census divisions where at least two-thirds of the division’s population live in states with paid sick leave laws.{{4}} The four lines in shades of red denote Census divisions where no state has a paid sick time provision.{{5}} Green lines denote Census divisions where some states have paid sick time laws but less than two-thirds of the division’s population are in those states.

The patterns in the figure are clear: Workers who live in the Census divisions marked by blue lines have the highest levels of access to paid sick days in 2023. The red-line Census divisions have the lowest levels of access, with the green-line divisions falling in the middle.

The Pacific division in particular saw a dramatic increase in access over the period from 2010 to 2023: The percentage of private-sector workers in that part of the country with access to paid sick days increased from 66% to 94%. Expansion in that division was a 42% increase from its base level. This is not surprising considering that division includes the paid sick provision states of California, Oregon, and Washington, and that those states represent the largest share of the population in that division.

The divisions identified with red lines—where no state-level paid sick time laws have been passed—experienced more modest gains between 2010 and 2023, if they experienced gains at all.

Notably, many state governments in the East South Central and West South Central Census divisions—the divisions with the lowest access rates—have passed preemption laws prohibiting local municipalities from passing paid leave and sick day policies (Policy Surveillance Program 2022). Those two divisions also have weak labor standards (e.g., low minimum wages; see EPI 2023). Further, low-wage workers and their families in those divisions are less likely to have access to public insurance (e.g., policymakers have refused to expand Medicaid; see KFF 2023).

Figure B

Low-wage workers particularly benefit from state sick leave laws

As mentioned earlier, this period of state expansions in paid sick leave laws translated into significant increases in overall access, from 63% to 78% between 2010 and 2023. But workers with lower wages, who generally are less likely to have access to paid sick days, have benefited disproportionately.

The first state-level paid sick days law was passed in Connecticut in 2011. In 2010, the year prior to its passage, 20% of workers in the bottom 10% of wage earners in the private-sector workforce nationwide had access to paid sick days (Figure C). That number stands at 39% today. That is an enormous gain, nearly doubling paid sick leave access for the lowest-wage workers.

Similarly, the share of workers in the bottom 25% with access to paid sick days increased from 33% in 2010 to 56% in 2023. In 2010, only one-third of workers in the bottom 25% had access; now over half do. This means significant gains in economic and health security for these workers and their families.

Figure C

Paid sick leave is a wise investment for businesses, workers, and communities

Often when a new labor standard is introduced, some people express concerns about the cost to businesses and potential employment losses. However, evidence among cities and states that have legislated paid sick leave laws shows that these concerns are not justified (National Partnership for Women & Families 2017).

In San Francisco, the first jurisdiction to set a paid sick days standard, employment grew twice as fast in the year following the law’s enactment as in neighboring counties that had no paid sick days policy (Miller and Towne 2011). San Francisco’s job growth was even faster in the food service and hospitality sector, which is dominated by small businesses and viewed as vulnerable to additional costs.

Further, studies of state and local paid sick leave laws show that the cost of the laws are negligible for businesses newly mandated to provide the benefit. For example, Pichler and Ziebarth (2018) examined the impact of paid sick leave laws on labor costs. In particular, they looked for evidence that the new policies were so costly that businesses passed down costs to their workers in the form of reduced earnings or employment loss. Pichler and Ziebarth found no evidence of this.

Businesses might also suggest that the added cost of paid sick leave would render them unable to provide other benefits, such as health insurance. But research has shown that paid sick leave policies are not so costly as to crowd out nonmandated fringe benefits such as health, dental, or disability benefits or paid vacation or holidays (Maclean, Pichler, and Ziebarth 2020).

Finally, employers may worry that workers might take paid sick leave when they are not actually sick. But evidence suggests this is not the case: Workers in states with new mandates take, on average, only two more sick days per year than workers in states without mandates (Maclean, Pichler, and Ziebarth 2020).

Case studies also reveal that paid sick leave makes economic sense. For example, a study of the 2011 Connecticut law (which went into effect in 2012) showed that the law brought paid sick days to a large number of workers, particularly part-time workers, at little to no cost to business (Appelbaum et al. 2014).

In a study of the 2013 New York City law (which took effect in 2014), Appelbaum and Milkman (2016) found that two years after the law was passed, 86% of employers surveyed supported the law. The law provided an additional 1.4 million workers with paid sick days, and almost 85% of employers surveyed reported the law had no effect on business costs.

Taken together, the evidence shows that paid sick leave does not hurt businesses. Instead, businesses, workers, and their communities all benefit from a more productive and healthier workforce (Drago and Lovell 2011). States and localities that have passed paid sick leave laws have reduced transmission rates for influenza-like illnesses (Pichler, Wen, and Ziebarth 2021). Where state policies are more generous and include more groups of workers, those states have seen a greater reduction in influenza-like-illness rates than states with less generous and less inclusive policies (Wething 2022). Moreover, evidence shows that workers in states with paid sick leave have a lower likelihood of working while sick (Schneider 2020; Callison and Pesko 2022).

More action is needed to protect all workers

The ability to earn paid sick leave stands to improve health outcomes of communities and reduce economic insecurity for workers while supporting businesses.

Access to earned paid sick leave means that workers do not have to go to work sick or risk their income security. The stress of an illness does not have to be compounded by worry about whether they will be able to pay their monthly bills. The economic security provided by paid sick leave is particularly critical for low-wage workers and their families, who may lack access to sufficient savings to cover an unexpected expense.

Businesses benefit from a healthy workforce—workers who show up at work sick are less likely to be productive and may be more prone to mistakes. Communities benefit, too. When workers can rest, get the health care they need, and fully recover from an illness before returning to work, transmission of diseases is reduced.

State and local measures have begun to provide a patchwork of solutions, corresponding to an increase in access to paid sick leave over the last decade. Localities have the potential to build momentum at the state level. For example, 13 cities in New Jersey passed paid sick leave laws in the years leading up to the passage of New Jersey’s 2018 state law (National Partnership for Women & Families 2016b). But the problem calls for national attention—especially given state attacks on the right of localities to legislate these protections (Policy Surveillance Program 2022). A lack of a national earned sick leave standard also means that there are inequalities in coverage, with the vast majority of low-wage workers still lacking access to paid sick time. 

As noted above, the Healthy Families Act of 2023 would allow workers to earn up to seven days of paid sick time per year, among other provisions (National Partnership for Women & Families 2023b). However, the act is not expected to advance in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives though bipartisan support for the Families First Coronavirus Response Act proved that there has been political will to pass these protections. Given the widespread success of state sick leave policies that have improved conditions for workers and communities without hurting employers’ bottom lines, it is disappointing that efforts at the national level to reach the overall workforce have yet to succeed. More action is needed to reach workers across the economy regardless of their wage levels, hours, or where their jobs are located.

Notes

{{1.}} See, for example, Cunha 2014.

{{2.}} Whereas the average wage of a worker with access to paid sick time is approximately $20.40 per hour, the average wage of a worker without access to paid sick time is $15.50 per hour. To the extent that we are overestimating actual work hours or wages, workers would have less to lose but also less in earnings to make ends meet in general.

{{3.}} For a full list of states by their respective Census divisions, see U.S. Census Bureau 2013.

{{4.}} For example, the Middle Atlantic Census division includes New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. New York and New Jersey have paid sick leave laws; Pennsylvania does not. In 2022, 29 million people lived in New York and New Jersey, and the total population of the Mid-Atlantic Census division population (population of all three states) was 42 million. That means 69% of people in the Mid-Atlantic Census division were covered by state paid sick leave laws.

{{5.}} There are some cities in those states with paid sick time policies, but they represent small populations compared with the Census division as a whole.

References

Appelbaum, Eileen. 2016. “The Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015.” Written testimony, January 14, 2016.

Appelbaum, Eileen, and Ruth Milkman. 2016. No Big Deal: The Impact of New York City’s Paid Sick Days Law on Employers. Center for Economic and Policy Research, September 2016.

Appelbaum, Eileen, Ruth Milkman, Luke Elliott, and Teresa Kroeger. 2014. Good for Business? Connecticut’s Paid Sick Leave Law. Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2014.

Asfaw, Abay, Regina Pana-Cryan, and Roger Rosa. 2012. “Paid Sick Leave and Nonfatal Occupational Injuries.” American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 9: e59–e64.

Ballotpedia. 2023. “Missouri Earned Paid Sick Time Initiative (2024)” (web page). Accessed October 20, 2023.

Bartel, Ann P., Soohyun Kim, Jaehyun Nam, Maya Rossin-Slater, Christopher J. Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel. 2019. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to and Use of Paid Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from Four Nationally Representative Datasets.” Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2019. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.2.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023a. National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2023. September 2023.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023b. National Compensation Survey [public data series].

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023c. “Table 3242. Consumer Units of Two People by Income Before Taxes: Average Annual Expenditures and Characteristics.” Consumer Expenditure Surveys, 2021–2022. September 2023.

Callison, Kevin, and Michael F. Pesko. 2022. “The Effect of Paid Sick Leave Mandates on Coverage, Work Absences, and Presenteeism.” Journal of Human Resources 57, no. 4: 1178–1208. https://doi.org/0.3368/jhr.57.4.1017-9124r2.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2022. “Key Facts About Influenza (Flu): What You Need to Know” (web page). Last reviewed October 24, 2022.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023a. “Ending Isolation and Precautions for People with COVID-19: Interim Guidance” (web page). Last updated August 22, 2023. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2023b. “RSV Transmission” (web page). Last reviewed April 26, 2023.

Cunha, Darlena. 2014. “Kids Come to School Sick Because We Can’t Stay Home from Work.” Washington Post, October 14, 2014.

Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (DHHS AHRQ). 2023. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey [database].

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (DOL WHD). 2021. COVID-19 and the Family and Medical Leave Act Questions and Answers (fact sheet). 2021.

Drago, Robert, and Vicky Lovell. 2011. San Francisco’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees. Institute for Women’s Policy Research, April 2011.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2023. Minimum Wage Tracker (interactive map). Last updated July 2023.

Gould, Elise. 2017. “Paid Sick Leave Provides Economic and Health Security to Over a Million Federal Contract Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), January 17, 2017.

Heymann, Jody, Amy Raub, Willetta Waisath, Michael McCormack, Ross Weistroffer, Gonzalo Moreno, Elizabeth Wong, and Alison Earle. 2020. “Protecting Health During COVID-19 and Beyond: A Global Examination of Paid Sick Leave Design in 193 Countries.” Global Public Health 15, no. 7: 925–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1764076.

Hill, Heather D. 2013. “Paid Sick Leave and Job Stability.” Work and Occupations 40, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413480893.

Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). 2023. Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map. October 2023.

Maclean, Johanna Catherine, Stefan Pichler, and Nicolas R. Ziebarth. 2020. “Mandated Sick Pay: Coverage, Utilization, and Welfare Effects.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 26832, March 2020. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26832.

Miller, Kevin, and Sarah Towne. 2011. “San Francisco Employment Growth Remains Stronger with Paid Sick Days Law Than Surrounding Counties” (fact sheet). Institute for Women’s Policy Research, September 2011.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2016a. “Most Women in Fast Food Industry Cannot Earn Paid Sick Time, Have Gone to Work with ‘Troubling Symptoms,’ Survey Finds” (press release). November 22, 2016.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2016b. “Paid Sick Days – State, District and County Statutes Updated November 2016” (web page). Accessed October 20, 2023 via Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2017. “Paid Sick Days: Low Cost, High Reward for Workers, Employers and Communities” (fact sheet).

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2023a. Current Paid Sick Days Laws (fact sheet). June 2023.

National Partnership for Women & Families. 2023b. The Healthy Families Act (fact sheet). May 2023.

Norton, D.M., L.G. Brown, R. Frick, L.R. Carpenter, A.L. Green, M. Tobin-D’Angelo, D.W. Reimann, H. Blade, D.C. Nicholas, J.S. Egan, and K. Everstine. 2015. “Managerial Practices Regarding Workers Working While Ill.” Journal of Food Protection 78, no. 1: 187–195. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-134.

Pichler, Stefan, Katherine Wen, and Nicolas R. Ziebarth. 2021. “Positive Health Externalities of Mandating Paid Sick Leave.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40, no. 3: 715–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22284.

Pichler, Stefan, and Nicolas R. Ziebarth. 2018. “Labor Market Effects of U.S. Sick Pay Mandates.” Journal of Human Resources 58, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.3.0117-8514R2.

Policy Surveillance Program. 2022. “State Preemption Laws” (web page). Last modified November 1, 2022.

Schneider, Daniel. 2020. “Paid Sick Leave in Washington State: Evidence on Employee Outcomes, 2016–2018.” American Journal of Public Health 110: 499–504. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305481.

Smith, Tom W., and Jibum Kim. 2010. Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences. National Opinion Research Center, June 2010.

Stoddard-Dare, Patricia, LeaAnne DeRigne, Cyleste C. Collins, Linda M. Quinn, and Kimberly Fuller. 2018. “Paid Sick Leave and Psychological Distress: An Analysis of U.S. Workers.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 88, no. 1: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000293.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “Census Regions and Divisions of the United States” (fact sheet). April 17, 2013.

Wething, Hilary. 2022. “Paid Sick Leave Policy Impacts on Health and Care Utilization in the United States: Why Policy Design Matters.” Journal of Public Health Policy 43, no. 4: 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-022-00371-9.

Political and religious coercion in the workplace is a growing problem affecting workers from all backgrounds and across the political spectrum. U.S. employers have tremendous power over worker conduct under current federal laws. For example, employers can require workers to attend “captive audience” meetings—and force employees to listen to political, religious, or anti-union employer views—on work time.

In the face of this growing threat, legislators in 18 states have advanced bills to protect workers from offensive or unwanted political and religious speech unrelated to job tasks or performance. These bills are designed to prohibit employers from threatening, disciplining, firing, or retaliating against workers who refuse to attend mandatory workplace meetings focused on communicating opinions on political or religious matters.

Importantly, these state laws do not limit employers’ rights to express their beliefs freely or even to continue inviting employees to attend workplace political or religious meetings. These laws simply empower workers to opt out of unwelcome political speech by protecting them from financial harm or retaliation if they choose not to attend such meetings.

A growing number of states are taking action to protect workers’ freedom of thought and association

So far, six states have enacted laws designed to protect employees’ dignity and freedom of thought and association. Table 1 summarizes these laws, additional bills currently under consideration, as well as bills that have been previously proposed.

Table 1

Because most workers (in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement) are considered “at-will” employees who can be terminated at any time, employers often try to exercise vast authority over employees’ lives, including their political activities or freedom of association.

This power is routinely abused to coerce workers into attending political rallies, religious discussions, or anti-union meetings under the threat of disciplinary action. State legislators, however, are working to fill the void left by continued congressional inaction. State legislation that creates a minimum labor standard to protect workers from abusive forms of employer coercion can help workers more fully exercise their basic rights.

Current labor and employment laws allow bosses to bombard workers with politics and religion

Employers are increasingly using the workplace to advance their political interests, and the lack of legal protections for workers has created a situation ripe for coercion. Traditionally, employers have relied on donations, lobbying, and political action committees to advance their political interests. However, nearly universal “at-will” employment laws and recent legal rulings are emboldening employers to politically mobilize their own employees.

Pervasive “at-will” employment laws give employers the right to terminate workers without cause or for virtually any reason—including their political beliefs. And the 2010 landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission extended First Amendment protections to corporate political spending and gave employers the green light to hold political captive audience meetings. In tandem, these laws have had dire implications for workers and the democratic process.

A 2015 study revealed how widespread political communication is in U.S. workplaces. One in four U.S. workers has been contacted by their employer regarding a political matter. Of these workers, 20% (representing 5% of all U.S. workers) received messages from their boss that included one or more threats of job loss, business closure, or changes to wages and hours. Under current federal labor and employment laws, it is perfectly legal for an employer to threaten, discipline, or terminate an employee for objecting to their boss’s political views.

Political coercion affects U.S. workers of all backgrounds and across the political spectrum. Consider the following examples in which workers were pressured to vote in specific ways or forced to donate to political campaigns or lobby other voters to support legislation.

• In 2014 at a ConocoPhillips’ site in Alaska, some 200 construction workers were called into a “safety stand-down” meeting—typically held after serious workplace incidents. Rather than addressing a safety concern, a ConocoPhillips’ representative discussed the company’s stance on the upcoming August primaries, emphasizing its opposition to a ballot measure to repeal a significant tax cut for oil companies. The message to the workers was that their jobs relied on tax breaks, and voting against the repeal could harm their industry and livelihoods. One worker described the meeting as an abuse of safety protocol, while others reported fearing for their jobs.
• During the 2012 election, presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke at an Ohio coal mine at the invitation of Murray Energy’s CEO, Robert Murray. Workers later said that mine operations were halted, and they were forced to attend the event without pay. Managerial staff also reported being pressured to donate to Murray Energy’s political action committee. Internal records later revealed that employee donations were monitored and that employees who failed to donate generously enough faced potential demotions and missed bonuses.
• In 2018, D.C. voters introduced Ballot Initiative 77 that would have raised the tipped wage from $3.33 to the regular minimum wage ($12.50 an hour at the time). Restaurant industry representatives embarked on a vigorous campaign opposing the initiative called “Save Our Tips,” warning of widespread restaurant closures and job losses. Around the city, restaurants displayed “Save Our Tips” and “NO on 77” signs. Some employers distributed weekly newsletters to employees featuring anti-Initiative 77 content and provided workers with instructions on how to vote on the initiative. Other employers held captive audience meetings during work hours to tell workers that Initiative 77 would harm them. Additionally, workers were encouraged to inform customers about the perceived negative impacts of the initiative.

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits religious discrimination by employers, religious coercion is rampant in U.S. workplaces. For example:

• In an infamous Oregon case, a formerly incarcerated worker of Native American descent attended weekly, hour-long Bible study sessions out of fear “that he wouldn’t be able to find other work” if he declined. Following six months of weekly attendance, the worker declined to attend further sessions and was subsequently fired.
• A North Carolina-based home renovation company required employees to attend daily worship sessions that included prayer and Bible reading. A lawsuit alleged that the company owner would track attendance and reprimand employees who were absent. Additionally, when a manager asked to be excused from prayer, the owner subsequently cut his pay and then fired him.
• Employees at a Long Island, New York, firm alleged they were compelled to pray, chant, and partake in spiritual interpersonal workshops as part of a program called “Onionhead.” Workers described the workplace as “cult-like” with religious ceremonies where incense was burned to purify the workspace and lights were dimmed to deter demons. Employees and later the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserted that employees who resisted were disciplined or terminated.

Employers use ‘captive audience’ meetings to support union-busting

Captive audience meetings have likewise become one of employers’ preferred union-busting tactics. Workers who express interest in unionizing are routinely required by employers to hear one-sided propaganda. Workers have no right to ask questions or hear opposing viewpoints during these meetings. Analysis of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections documents shows that 89% of all employers conduct captive audience meetings in response to unionization efforts. And the use of captive audience meetings caused the average union election win rate to fall from 73% to 47%.

Today, employers spend over $400 million per year on “union-avoidance” consultants, who specialize in using captive audience meetings along with a host of other tactics designed to intimidate and instill fear in workers for the purpose of union-busting. Legislation giving workers the right to opt out of captive audience meetings without fear of discipline or termination is fundamental to restoring workers’ basic right to organize without interference.

The unequal impact of coercive speech on workers

Legislation to protect workers from coercive speech is particularly important for the workers most likely to encounter discrimination at work.

Particularly vulnerable to such coercion are Black, brown, disabled, formerly incarcerated, LGBTQ, and other groups of workers who have historically faced discrimination and unequal treatment in the labor market. Structural racism and discrimination in the form of systematically higher unemployment rates, higher job search costs, lower wages, and greater tolerance for unfair treatment, put these workers in a disadvantaged position to resist employer abuses.

Further, the United States’ piecemeal approach to holding employers accountable for discrimination often puts the onus of enforcement on workers, leaves many exposed to retaliation, and excludes many of the most vulnerable workers altogether. Given the precarity of employment for non-union workers in the United States, there is a clear need for comprehensive and enforceable worker protections from coercive speech.

Conclusion: State-level solutions to coercion

State lawmakers have the power to fight back against employer coercion and address gaps in weak, outdated federal laws. States can legislate to protect workers from unwanted speech, as affirmed by the Supreme Court’s 1988 ruling Frisby v. Schultz. Many of the proposed state-level laws also have the advantage of offering quicker enforcement mechanisms than federal proceedings and include provisions for “injunctive relief” (emergency court intervention to immediately stop damaging employer behavior), restitution for lost wages, reinstatement with retained benefits and seniority, and coverage of attorney fees. As the national spotlight intensifies on growing economic inequality and decades-long erosion of workers’ rights, it is clear that state-led initiatives could play a pivotal role in shaping the future of worker rights in the U.S.

Legislators in all states should continue to build on existing momentum to protect the freedom to avoid offensive or unwanted political and religious speech at work. Lawmakers can enact enforcement mechanisms to protect workers against financial harm and retaliation if they opt out of such speech. This legislation will help safeguard democracy by protecting citizens from undue influence over their political views, donations, or votes; guaranteeing workers’ freedoms; and ensuring all workers can fully exercise their rights in the workplace.