HR-9347-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
What it does
This bill would expand the definition of "oppressive child labor" under the Fair Labor Standards Act to cover additional industries and worksites, and would require the Department of Labor to issue and update hazardous occupation regulations every five years. It would significantly raise civil and criminal penalties for child labor violations — including minimum compensatory damages of $75,000 per affected child and up to $1 million in punitive damages for violations causing death or serious injury — and would extend the statute of limitations for child labor claims to 10 years. The bill would also impose child labor compliance requirements on federal contractors and recipients of federal financial assistance under the Davis-Bacon Act and Service Contract Act, allow the Secretary of Labor to issue stop-work orders, and require annual reports to Congress on work-related injuries and deaths.
Who benefits
Minor workers — particularly those in manufacturing, meat processing, mining, demolition, and other hazardous industries — who would receive stronger legal protections and access to greater damages. Child victims of labor violations and their families, who would gain new private rights of action with higher minimum damage awards and a longer window to file claims. Labor unions and domestic workers in compliant industries, who would face less competition from employers using cheaper child labor. Federal contract compliance officers and labor attorneys who would gain expanded enforcement tools. Advocacy organizations focused on child welfare and labor rights.
Who is hurt
Employers in industries that currently employ minors — including agriculture (which retains existing exemptions), food processing, retail, and hospitality — who would face higher compliance costs and greater legal exposure. Federal contractors and subcontractors at all tiers, who would face new child labor certification requirements and potential debarment for up to three years. Businesses that rely on complex supply chains, who would bear new due-diligence obligations even for the conduct of distant subcontractors. Small businesses with limited legal and compliance resources, who may face disproportionate administrative burdens. Successor companies that acquire businesses with prior violations, who could face joint and several liability for those violations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that child labor violations have surged in recent years — the Department of Labor reported a 69% increase in children found employed in violation of federal law between 2018 and 2022 — and that existing penalties are too low to deter large corporations. They contend that the current maximum penalty of roughly $15,000 per violation is negligible for major employers, and that raising minimum damages to $75,000 per child and extending the statute of limitations to 10 years would create meaningful deterrence. They further argue that extending liability through supply chains is necessary because companies have historically insulated themselves from accountability by outsourcing hazardous work to subcontractors.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad supply-chain liability provisions — which can reach subcontractors "at any tier" — would impose unpredictable legal exposure on businesses that have no direct knowledge of or control over distant suppliers' labor practices, even with a good-faith defense. They contend that mandatory minimum damages of $75,000 per child, combined with joint and several liability for successor companies, could produce disproportionate penalties for technical or minor violations and may deter legitimate business acquisitions. They further argue that the Secretary of Labor's new authority to issue stop-work orders affecting worksites not directly involved in a violation raises due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate child labor rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has supported the Fair Labor Standards Act since its enactment. The bill's delegation of broad rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Labor — including authority to define hazardous occupations and issue stop-work orders — could face scrutiny under the major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and post-Chevron independent judicial review (Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 2024), particularly for sweeping stop-work orders applied to worksites not directly involved in a violation. The stop-work order provision, which halts operations at uninvolved worksites, may also raise questions under the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Department of Labor) gains significant new enforcement authority, including stop-work orders, supply-chain investigations, and rulemaking mandates; checks include judicial review of agency orders, the good-faith defense for contractors, and congressional oversight through mandatory annual reports.
Historical precedent
The original Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established federal child labor prohibitions, and Congress has periodically amended it — most recently through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (2008) — but no prior legislation has imposed supply-chain liability at all tiers or mandatory minimum compensatory damages of this magnitude for child labor violations.