Two Democratic lawmakers are attempting to prevent Maine business owners from having a say in when their employees take leave under the state’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave program.
The program, enacted last year as part of a spending bill, has levied a one percent payroll tax on most working Mainers that will fund paid leave for all Maine workers, starting May 2026.
The law and related rules underlying this program currently require that employees’ leave must be scheduled in such a way that it does not create “undue hardship” for their employers.
This provision would be repealed, however, if LD 575 — sponsored by Sen. Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot) and cosponsored by Rep. Amy J. Roeder (D-Bangor) — were to be approved.
While many Republican critics and business owners believe the law presents too much of a burden for businesses, the two Penobscot County progressives have backed legislation that would make the law even tougher for those who sign the front of the paychecks.
The debate over how best to give employers the ability to assert that an employee’s request for leave would constitute an “undue hardship” on their business while still allowing employees a degree of flexibility played a prominent role in the Maine Department of Labor’s (MDOL) rulemaking process.
Although many of the major structural elements of this program were already outlined in the law, most of the specifics were left up to MDOL and a commission formed to administer the program.
In this case, the law itself only contains one sentence concerning the undue hardship exception.
Over the summer, Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed a budget into law that included, among other things, legislation establishing the program with a starting appropriation of $25 million for the MDOL.
Beginning in the spring of 2026, Maine workers will be eligible to take up to twelve weeks of paid leave to care for a sick family member, as well as to bond with a newborn baby or newly adopted child. Also eligible for leave are those who are experiencing a serious health condition and are rendered unable to work for an extended period, and anyone serving as a caregiver for someone who meets the other conditions.
Employers and employees began contributing a new one percent payroll tax to the state on January 1, 2025, sixteen months ahead of when benefits are scheduled to first become available.
Click Here for More Information on the Paid Family and Medical Leave Program
While the MDOL was given a great deal of leeway with regards to implementation, the requirement that leave schedules be made in such a way as to prevent “undue hardship” for employers was directly mandated by the Legislature.
Under the MDOL’s final rules for the program, employers are given the opportunity to assert that the timing or duration of an employee’s requested leave creates an undue hardship that cannot be overcome.
Despite this, employees still retain “the ability to take leave within a reasonable time frame relative to the proposed schedule,” and “a good faith attempt” must be made to work out a schedule that would not be disruptive of the employer’s operation.
If medical leave is requested, the final schedule agreed upon by the employer and the employee must “be sufficient to accommodate the healthcare needs of the employee” as determined by the employee’s healthcare provider.
Sen. Tipping and Rep. Roeder’s bill seeks to repeal the statutory requirement underlying these provisions, meaning that the MDOL would no longer be mandated by law to give employers this option.
President of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce Patrick Woodcock told the Maine Wire that the organization “would oppose striking that provision unequivocally.”
“I think the intent really was that the Paid Family and Medical Leave Program — for businesses that would be really undermined by a leave at a critical period — would have some ability to negotiate a use of leave that would not cause a challenge for the business,” Woodcock explained.
“I think [the undue hardship provision] was sort of a recognition that if this program is offered, that there be a recognition that this really can be — given the state of the economy — a real hardship for some businesses, but mostly small employers,” he said.
Woodcock also told the Maine Wire that while the Chamber clearly opposing eliminating this provision, they would like to see it improved.
“We have recommendations on how to improve it, so we welcome the Legislature opening up the law, but ultimately, we will be recommending that it be very clear and, you know, that you don’t have to have a have a dissertation to the Department of Labor of how to utilize the undue hardship if you’re an employer,” Woodcock said.
“And so I do think that the provision does need some additional work,” he said. “It’s really just one sentence in the statute, and I think that there should be some greater guidance from the Legislature of what are the purposes, and that we all agree that there’s some examples that I think we could come to that are reasonable uses of asserting undue hardship, and there are examples that I think we could come up with that are that are not within that standard.”
“I do think that we need to be careful in how it’s constructed,” said Woodcock. “A business shouldn’t be able to just say, you know, ‘no, you’re not able to get a leave’ when it really is not creating an undue hardship, and [the state should] make it easy for employees and employers alike to know how this unique provision is going to be operationalized in the state.”
“I do think, and I’m hopeful, that the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, and you know, legislators continue to make some changes to this bill,” Woodcock said. “In our view, we certainly think the hardship provision should be extremely easy to use for these small businesses. I mean, these are businesses that don’t have a legal team. They don’t have a, you know, an HR operation, but [they need to be able to] exercise this in a way that protects their business from leave at critical points during the year.”
LD 575, which would eliminate the undue hardship provision entirely, has been referred to the Labor Committee for further consideration, but a public hearing has not yet been scheduled.
0 Comments