S-1664-118
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 136.
Sponsored by Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
What it does
The Healthy Families Act would require employers with 15 or more employees to provide up to 56 hours (7 days) of paid sick time per year, accruing at 1 hour for every 30 hours worked. Employers with fewer than 15 employees would be required to provide the same amount of unpaid sick time, with the option to make it paid. Covered employees could use the time for their own illness, medical care, care of a family member, or absences related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The bill would apply to most private-sector employers, federal agencies, Congress, and rail carriers, and would be enforced by the Department of Labor with civil remedies available to employees.
Who benefits
The roughly 33 million U.S. workers who currently lack access to any paid sick leave, disproportionately concentrated in low-wage service, retail, food service, and agricultural jobs. Part-time workers, who are less likely to receive paid leave benefits. Domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking survivors who need time away from work for legal proceedings, medical care, or relocation. Workers in states and localities without existing paid sick leave laws. Caregivers — particularly women, who statistically bear a larger share of family caregiving responsibilities. Public health broadly, as paid leave reduces the spread of communicable illness in workplaces and schools. Rail workers, who are explicitly covered. Small businesses that already offer paid leave and would face a more level competitive playing field.
Who is hurt
Employers — particularly small businesses with 15 or more employees — who would bear direct costs of providing paid leave, including payroll, administrative compliance, and potential disruption from unplanned absences. Businesses in low-margin industries such as restaurants, retail, and hospitality, where labor costs are a primary expense. Employers in states with no existing paid sick leave laws, who would face the largest adjustment. Businesses that use no-fault attendance policies, which the bill would restrict. Consumers who may face modestly higher prices if employers pass through increased labor costs. Employers with fewer than 15 workers who, while only required to provide unpaid leave, would still bear administrative and scheduling burdens. Competitors of businesses in states that already have paid sick leave laws, who currently operate under lower compliance costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States is one of the few wealthy nations without a federal paid sick leave guarantee, leaving approximately 33 million workers — concentrated in low-wage jobs — with no ability to take a paid sick day without risking their income or employment. They contend that the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the public health cost of this gap, as workers without paid leave were more likely to work while ill and spread disease. Supporters further argue that the bill's 56-hour annual cap is modest, that employers with existing policies are explicitly exempted from additional requirements, and that states and localities retain the ability to set higher standards.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a federal one-size-fits-all mandate ignores significant variation in labor markets, business sizes, and regional economies, and that small businesses operating on thin margins — particularly in food service, retail, and hospitality — would face disproportionate cost burdens that could reduce hiring or hours. They contend that the Congressional Budget Office has found that employer mandates of this type may reduce employment or shift workers toward part-time status to avoid coverage thresholds. Opponents further argue that states and localities are better positioned to calibrate paid leave requirements to local conditions, and that a federal floor displaces ongoing state-level experimentation already underway in more than a dozen states.
Constitutional context
Congress grounds this bill in its Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), using the same jurisdictional hook as the Fair Labor Standards Act — covering employers "engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce." This approach has been consistently upheld since Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The bill's delegation of rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Labor is explicit and bounded, which reduces — though does not eliminate — exposure to nondelegation challenges; post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether the Secretary's implementing regulations stay within the statutory text.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the substantive requirements; the executive branch (Secretary of Labor) gains rulemaking and enforcement authority; federal and state courts serve as a check through private rights of action, Secretary-initiated civil suits, and independent judicial review of agency regulations under Loper Bright.
Historical precedent
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 established a federal floor for unpaid job-protected leave using the same Commerce Clause framework; the Healthy Families Act would extend that model to require paid leave for shorter-duration absences.