S-3869-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
What it does
This bill would require most U.S. employers with 20 or more workweeks of employment activity per year to provide employees at least 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 56 hours (7 days) per year. Employees could use this time for their own illness, medical appointments, care of a broad range of family members, or absences related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The bill would be enforced by the Department of Labor, with employees also able to bring private lawsuits, and it would set a federal floor — states and localities could provide more generous leave but not less.
Who benefits
Workers in low-wage jobs (retail, food service, hospitality, agriculture, home care) who currently lack paid sick leave — estimated at roughly 33 million U.S. workers. Part-time workers who accrue leave proportionally. Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking who gain job-protected time to seek help. Workers' families, including children who benefit when a parent can stay home without losing pay. Public health broadly, as paid leave may reduce the spread of communicable illness in workplaces and schools. Workers in states without existing paid sick leave laws. Railroad workers, who are specifically included. Employees who are rehired within 12 months and have their accrued leave reinstated.
Who is hurt
Small and mid-sized employers who currently offer no paid sick leave and would face new direct labor costs. Businesses in low-margin industries (restaurants, retail, agriculture) where labor costs are a large share of expenses. Employers in states with no existing paid sick leave laws, who would face the steepest compliance adjustment. Businesses that may reduce hours, wages, or hiring to offset new costs, potentially affecting the workers the bill aims to help. Employers who must absorb administrative costs of tracking accrual, certification, and recordkeeping. Competitors of businesses in states that already mandate paid sick leave, who currently benefit from lower labor cost requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that approximately 33 million U.S. workers — disproportionately low-wage, part-time, and minority workers — have no access to paid sick leave, forcing them to choose between their paycheck and their health or their family's health. They contend that workers without paid sick leave are significantly more likely to go to work while ill, spreading disease, and that studies of state-level paid sick leave laws in Connecticut, California, and New York found minimal negative employment effects while improving worker retention and reducing turnover costs for employers. They further argue the bill sets only a modest floor of 7 days per year — less than what most white-collar workers already receive — and explicitly preserves more generous existing policies.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a one-size-fits-all federal mandate ignores significant variation in business size, industry, and regional labor markets, and that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that similar mandates could reduce employment, particularly for low-wage and part-time workers who are most at risk of having their hours cut. They contend that states and localities are better positioned to calibrate leave requirements to local economic conditions, and that the bill's broad definition of covered family members and qualifying absences — including anyone with a "close association equivalent to a family relationship" — creates open-ended obligations that are difficult for employers to verify and manage, increasing litigation risk and compliance costs disproportionately for small businesses.
Constitutional context
Congress grounds this bill in its Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), using the same definitional framework as the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has been upheld under the aggregation principle established in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The bill delegates rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Labor; under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts would independently review whether the Secretary's implementing regulations stay within the statute's boundaries rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation.
Checks and balances
Congress grants new rulemaking and enforcement authority to the Department of Labor (executive branch gains power); checks include private rights of action in federal and state courts, a 2–3 year statute of limitations, GAO oversight studies, annual data reporting requirements, and the explicit preservation of state and local authority to set higher standards.
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; this bill would extend that model to paid leave, which has been enacted in roughly a dozen states since Connecticut's 2011 law.