This is not going to help businesses stay afloat and the majority of us do not enjoy the work environments and practices that these c-suite people have to offer. They do not care and they are constantly measuring the wrong things! This is just another thing, that’s going to drive up taxes and costs, while businesses are down and out an employee. This will be used and abused, just like all our other systems that are presented as a help and benefit to people. Don’t many places already offer supplemental insurance, that something like this falls under? I call this a “feel good law”.. it’s meant to appeal to people as being compassionate and caring. But the reality of it is, it’s not good for business, or lowering costs and taxes. Which is what our governor campaigned on, right? Affordable for whom, exactly? Not Virginians!

I fully agree with the previous comment in opposition of this legislation. I would like to add that I strongly believe that the Governor only did this to get her name in the papers, to appear as if she was doing this for the betterment of the citizens of the Commonwealth, but in all actuality, she has not helped anyone in VA by doing this. Her agenda has been nothing but smoke and mirrors. Quite frankly, I'm extremely disappointed and embarrassed to call her our leader.

I'm interested in hearing more.

This program will kill jobs.  Businesses cannot operate without their employees and this law like so many others enacted without considering the unintended impacts will kill local businesses and therefore the jobs that it is supposed to protect.  Recommended action is to report back that this is an ill-advised law that needs to be repealed immediately.

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is pleased to submit comments in response to the Virginia Employment Commission’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding the establishment of a paid family and medical leave program as required by Chapters 981 and 1093 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly. As the largest business advocacy organization in the Commonwealth, representing thousands of employers of all sizes and in all industries, the Virginia Chamber has a direct interest in ensuring the rulemaking process results in regulations that are workable, clearly understood, and implemented in a manner that gives employers and employees alike sufficient time and guidance to comply. Recognizing that this regulatory process will be among the most significant ever undertaken in Virginia, the purpose of this comment is to underscore the breadth and technical complexity of the process—technical complexity that is magnified for employers given the passage of separate legislation mandating employer provision of paid sick leave. As this work begins, we also respectfully urge the Commission to ensure the rulemaking process reflects that complexity and to recognize the importance of adequate time, transparency, and stakeholder engagement throughout the regulatory development period.

Chapters 981 and 1093 require the promulgation of rules and regulations governing the program by April 1, 2028, less than two years from enactment. The scope of those rules must be recognized at the outset: the claims filing and processing system, certification standards, employer notification requirements and timelines, contribution rates and actuarial assumptions, private plan approval and certification processes, procedures for self-employed individual election, coordination of intermittent leave, appeals procedures, and enforcement.

Coordination of intermittent leave is critical, as it presents unique operational challenges for employers, especially small and mid-sized businesses. The Commission should provide clear, workable guidance on the administration of intermittent leave and the Virginia Chamber strongly recommends the Commission adopt rules that align intermittent leave standards with those established in federal law under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), where applicable, to avoid creation of a duplicative or conflicting compliance burden. Virginia employers will require clear definitions of qualifying leave increments, certification requirements, notice obligations, and protections against abuse to effectively manage workforce operations while adhering to the intent of the law. Without such clarity, intermittent leave provisions risk creating significant and unnecessary confusion for Virginia employers. In all areas of the rulemaking, we believe that efforts to reduce this complexity through shortcuts, rather than addressing it fully and directly, are likely to create ambiguities and compliance challenges that introduce uncertainty for both employers and employees.

Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement should be emphasized from the outset and should not be limited to formal comment periods. We respectfully request the Commission convene a regulatory advisory panel that reflects the broad diversity of Virginia employers. Such panel should include a representative sample of employers of all sizes across the Commonwealth, including nonprofit organizations and the self-employed, as well as representatives from the insurance industry and legal and human resources professionals. We believe a collaborative approach to the rulemaking process would best ensure the quality and credibility of any regulations to be promulgated.

We would also respectfully request the Commission ensure a formal comment period for proposed regulations of at least 60 days. A 30-day window will be inadequate for evaluating regulations of the anticipated breadth and complexity. A longer window will ensure Virginia employers have sufficient time to consult with counsel, model financial impacts, and prepare comments that are informative to the Commission.

Contribution Rates

Perhaps the most impactful of the regulations to be developed are those concerning the contribution rates for the program. The requirements of Chapters 981 and 1093, particularly those made at the outset regarding initial contribution rates, will directly effect every employer and covered employee in Virginia. Uncertainty is inherent in this process, as Virginia has no direct experience upon which to draw and actuarial assumptions will have to be made.

As such, we respectfully request that the Commission, prior to proposing contribution rate regulations, commission and make publicly available a full actuarial analysis of the program’s projected costs, utilization assumptions, and fund solvency scenarios under a range of possible conditions. Employers will be unable to meaningfully plan or budget unless there is confidence that the underlying assumptions have been independently examined and disclosed. As Virginia will be the 14^th state to establish a program of this type, the experiences of other states should be incorporated into this analysis and made publicly available.

Job Restoration and Tenure Requirements

Chapters 981 and 1093 condition job restoration on an employee having been employed with their employer for at least 120 days prior to the commencement of leave. The application of this rule in practice is heavily dependent on the Commission’s regulations, and there are numerous questions which must be addressed with maximum precision. How is the 120-day period calculated—calendar days, workdays, or hours worked? How are gaps in employment to be treated? How will an employee who transfers between affiliated entities of a larger corporate family be treated? The regulations to be developed on this front must reflect the realities of the modern workforce. The regulations to be developed must address these questions, and others, with precision and specificity; leaving these issues to be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the claims and appeals process only serves to create uncertainty for employers, employees, and the Commission.

Impact on Small Businesses

Although the statute anticipates unique impacts for Virginia’s small employers—limiting the contribution obligation of employers of ten or fewer to the per employee share only—most Virginia businesses exceed that threshold. However, the impact on an employer of ten or fewer is likely to be similar to the impact on employers that would otherwise be considered small businesses. The disruptions experienced by an employer of 9 employees due to extended leave will not be dissimilar from the disruptions experienced by an employer of 11 employees. Indeed, in either example an employee taking 12 weeks of leave represents the loss of about ten percent of the employer’s workforce for a full quarter, in addition to costs that no insurance benefit can offset, such as lost productivity and temporary replacement costs. We respectfully urge the Commission to conduct a rigorous economic analysis of the projected impact of employers of 50 or fewer employees, including estimated contribution costs as a percentage of payroll, projected utilization rates, and the consequences, financially and operationally, of simultaneous or consecutive leave events. Such analysis would benefit both the Commission, by informing regulatory design, and small employers who must plan now for the program’s implementation. We would encourage the Commission to make this analysis as part of the larger process and to make it publicly available for review and comment.

Clarity for Private Plans

Finally, Chapters 981 and 1093 provide that an employer may satisfy its obligations under the statute through a private plan, subject to the approval of the Commission. The Chamber strongly supports robust development of this pathway, as many Virginia employers already provide paid family and medical leave benefits at levels that meet or exceed the statutory minimums. We strongly believe these employers should not face unnecessary barriers to approval and certification by the Commission. We respectfully urge the Commission to develop regulations in this area that are clear, predictable, and which include transparent standards and a streamlined application process with defined timelines for decision by the Commission. Any ambiguity in the private plan option serves only to discourage employers from pursuing it, potentially limiting benefits for Virginia employees to the statutory minimum amount.

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce thanks the Commission for its thoughtful consideration of this comment, and we look forward to continued engagement and active participation with the Commission at every stage of this process.

Expanding Paid Family Medical Leave in Virginia to 80-100% for up to 12 weeks a year would allow for families to better prepare for end of life medical care, for family planning, medical emergencies and other medical care for residents. Access to paid leave would make it easier for families to consider growing knowing they could be better prepared and allow for longer bonding between parents and their children, when that decision is left to employers families suffer, families that breastfeed are often pushed to formula because of the lack of access to proper time with their children and families could save more money by accessing paid family leave. Families considering growing under these current economic pressures would be less likely to consider growing without financial assurances such as paid family leave. The option of leaving it to employers often means parents get less time with their babies and less financial security for working families. Policies like this actually show up for working families in the Commonwealth. This is just the beginning. 

The Council of Independent Colleges in Virginia, Inc. d/b/a Virginia Private Colleges appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Virginia Employment Commission’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding implementation of Virginia’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program established by Chapters 981 and 1093 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly.

CICV represents 28 Virginia nonprofit independent colleges and universities. Our member institutions are employers, educators, community anchors, and providers of significant student employment opportunities. As the Commission begins this important regulatory process, CICV respectfully urges the development of regulations, guidance, FAQs, and implementation materials that are clear, practical, and attentive to the unique operational structures of institutions of higher education.

Virginia’s PFML program will require significant payroll, human resources, benefits administration, employee communication, and compliance planning. For colleges and universities, those responsibilities are complicated by the fact that institutions employ students in a variety of campus-based roles, including federal work-study positions, hourly student employment, graduate assistantships, resident assistant roles, and other positions connected to a student’s enrollment. Because certain student services may be excluded from “employment” under existing unemployment compensation principles, VEC guidance is essential to determine whether and how those exclusions apply in the PFML context.

CICV respectfully requests that the Commission address certain questions in the forthcoming regulatory process, including but not limited to:

1. Are student employees at institutions of higher education intended to be treated as covered individuals under the new PFML program?
2. Are wages paid to students employed by the same institution in which they are enrolled and regularly attending classes intended to count toward monetary eligibility under the PFML program?
3. Does the Commission anticipate that existing Title 60.2 exclusions applicable to certain student services will inform implementation of the new PFML program?
4. Will forthcoming regulations or guidance specifically address student employees, graduate assistants, federal work-study positions, hourly student workers, resident assistants, and similar campus-based roles?

CICV members have received early, but speculative, indications that student services performed for the institution where the student is enrolled and regularly attending classes may be excluded from “employment” under existing unemployment law principles, but clear guidance is needed.

A key implementation question is whether the PFML statute incorporates all relevant unemployment-law exclusions, including those related to student services, or whether PFML coverage and monetary eligibility will be interpreted more broadly. Institutions would also benefit from confirmation on whether the following categories are likely to be excluded or covered:

• A work-study student employed by the institution where the student is enrolled and regularly attending classes: likely excluded.
• A student hourly employee employed by the institution where the student is enrolled and regularly attending classes: likely excluded.
• A recent graduate, non-enrolled student, or student not regularly attending classes: potentially covered.

This clarification is not merely technical. Student employment is integrated into campus operations, financial aid, residence life, academic support, athletics, dining, libraries, admissions, advancement, and other institutional functions. Ambiguity regarding coverage, wage counting, contribution obligations, and monetary eligibility could create significant payroll and reporting complexity for institutions and confusion for students.

CICV joins the broader employer community in urging the Commission to conduct an open, deliberate, and highly transparent regulatory process. This rulemaking will be among the most consequential employment-related regulatory actions undertaken in Virginia. The Commission’s regulations will need to address claims administration, employer reporting, contribution rates, actuarial assumptions, certification standards, employee notice, private plan approval, intermittent leave, appeals, enforcement, and coordination with other leave and benefits programs.

CICV joins others in requesting the Commission convene a regulatory advisory panel or comparable stakeholder workgroup that includes representatives of nonprofit employers, institutions of higher education, small and mid-sized employers, human resources professionals, payroll administrators, benefits professionals, legal counsel, insurers, and other affected stakeholders. Formal comment periods are important, but they are not a substitute for sustained technical engagement during the development of regulations.

CICV also encourages the Commission to provide a minimum 60-day formal comment period when proposed regulations are published. Given the breadth of the issues involved, employers will need adequate time to review the proposal, consult with counsel and benefits advisors, model financial and administrative impacts, and provide comments that will be useful to the Commission.

Contribution rates also require particular care. CICV respectfully requests that, before proposing contribution-rate regulations, the Commission make publicly available a full actuarial analysis of projected program costs, utilization assumptions, solvency scenarios, and expected employer and employee contribution impacts. Institutions need reliable information to prepare future budgets, configure payroll systems, communicate with employees, and evaluate whether private plans may be viable.

The Commission should consider providing clear rules governing intermittent leave. Colleges and universities operate on academic calendars, semester schedules, residential life staffing models, athletic seasons, clinical placements, lab schedules, and other time-sensitive operational structures. Intermittent leave rules should align, where appropriate, with federal FMLA standards to avoid duplicative or conflicting compliance burdens. Regulations should clearly define qualifying leave increments, certification requirements, notice obligations, employer response timelines, and coordination with existing institutional leave policies.

CICV asks the Commission to develop a clear and workable private-plan approval process. Many nonprofit colleges and universities already provide paid parental leave, short-term disability, long-term disability, sick leave, PTO, or other benefits that may overlap with or exceed portions of the new statutory program. The regulations should include transparent standards, defined application timelines, renewal procedures, and clear guidance on how private plans will coordinate with state-administered benefits. Ambiguity in this area could discourage employers from maintaining or expanding existing benefits.

Finally, the Commission should consider the cumulative impact of the PFML program alongside other new employer mandates. Colleges and universities must prepare for payroll contributions, employee notices, coordination with existing leave programs, benefits continuation, job restoration requirements, student-worker questions, HRIS changes, and employee communications. These obligations carry real administrative and financial consequences, particularly for smaller institutions and nonprofit employers with limited administrative capacity.

CICV appreciates the Commission’s willingness to engage stakeholders early in this process, and we welcome continued dialogue as the regulatory process moves forward.

Regent University appreciates the opportunity to comment in response to the Virginia Employment Commission’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding the establishment of a paid family and medical leave program as required by Chapters 981 and 1093 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly.

Regent is a nonprofit Christian university in Virginia Beach. It educates students across a broad range of undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs, and it serves one of the largest online and distance student populations in the Commonwealth. As an employer, Regent supports its academic mission through a workforce that includes faculty, staff, and a substantial number of student employees. Because Regent teaches and employs both on campus and remotely, its workforce spans on-site and remote arrangements, and many of its employees perform services from outside Virginia.

Regent supports and incorporates the comments submitted by the Council of Independent Colleges in Virginia but writes separately to address several issues of particular importance to institutions like Regent.

First, the treatment of student compensation. Regent shares CICV’s questions about whether and how the unemployment-law student-service exclusions carry into PFML and adds that its graduate and professional programs compensate student workers in varied forms, including stipends, tuition remission, hourly wages, and housing allowances. Regent asks the VEC to confirm how each form is treated for eligibility and contributions, and whether excluded student services nonetheless generate wages for PFML contribution purposes. The regulations should also address the transition point when a student’s exclusion ends. Regent asks the VEC to specify whether wages earned while the exclusion applied count toward monetary eligibility afterward, how enrollment breaks such as summer terms are treated, and what standards define enrollment and regular attendance for part-time and online students.

Regent also requests examples or safe-harbor guidance addressing common higher education scenarios, including graduate assistants, work-study participants, resident assistants, teaching assistants, and students who move between student and non-student employment within the same base period.

Second, remote and multi-state work. Regent employs a large remote workforce, yet it is unclear whether the § 60.2-217 localization rules govern coverage under the new PFML program. Regent asks the VEC to confirm if and how the localization rules determine coverage for out-of-state and remote work, whether wages localized outside Virginia are excluded from contributions and eligibility, and how employers should report when a worker’s location changes during a benefit year.

Regent further asks the VEC to address coordination with other states’ paid leave or unemployment systems so that employers are not required to report or contribute on the same wages in multiple jurisdictions absent clear statutory direction.

Third, the treatment of adjunct faculty. Regent’s adjunct faculty are paid a contracted amount per credit hour or per student. Regent asks the VEC to clarify how adjunct faculty compensation is treated for eligibility and contributions. Because most adjunct faculty hold primary employment elsewhere, and many work from outside Virginia, Regent also asks how primary and secondary employment and out-of-state work bear on eligibility.

Fourth, coordination with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. Regent asks the VEC to address how PFML and FMLA coordinate, including how concurrent use is administered and how the differing eligibility rules interact.

Regent appreciates the Virginia Employment Commission’s engagement and welcomes continued discussion.

The Northern Virginia Chamber (NVC) submits these comments in response to the Virginia Employment Commission’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action (NOIRA) on establishing a Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program under Chapters 981 and 1093 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly. NVC is one of Greater Washington’s and Virginia’s most influential business organizations, today representing close to 500,000 employees and impacting policy across this region and the Commonwealth. Our members have a strong interest in ensuring the resulting regulations to implement the PFML program are clear, workable, and provide employers sufficient time and guidance to comply, and to help employees understand the program. Given the scope, technical complexity, and cost of this effort, especially alongside new paid sick leave requirements, we urge the Commission to prioritize robust stakeholder engagement and to conduct a thorough analysis of the potential costs of implementing this program as it presents a major shift in how Virginia businesses operate.

Because of the scope of the program and its subsequent impact on the cost of doing business in Virginia, employers must be engaged throughout the process in a meaningful way. First and foremost, we need all aspects of this process to be shared in a way that encourages engagement with the private sector. Transparency is key; this process must be done in the open and on a timeline that allows for maximum participation. We believe a robust and comprehensive statewide engagement strategy is needed in order to implement this program in the most effective and least disruptive way possible. Northern Virginia is proudly home to a strong business community representing a diverse set of industries and business sizes and types. In order to be sufficient, implementation must go beyond the minimum required.

We align our comments with those of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce regarding the need for a new actuarial analysis prior to proposing contribution rates. The direct costs of this program will be borne by employers and employees, and all deserve to have the best and most recent cost analysis available when reviewing proposed regulations. This is particularly true when you consider the resources employers need to expend to comply with the program and to inform employees both prior to implementation and going forward during the regular course of business. This is a brand new program, and education will be critical to its implementation.

NVC is grateful for the opportunity to submit these comments to the NOIRA and thanks the VEC for reviewing. Please look to us as a resource as you continue your work to establish the Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program under Chapters 981 and 1093 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly.

The Virginia Assisted Living Association (VALA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Virginia Employment Commission’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action for the development of regulations implementing Virginia’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program. VALA represents assisted living communities across the Commonwealth that provide housing, personal care, medication management, and health-related services to thousands of older adults and individuals with disabilities. Assisted living communities operate continuously, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and must maintain adequate staffing to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of their residents. As the Commission develops these regulations, VALA encourages an implementation approach that fulfills the intent of the legislation while recognizing the unique operational responsibilities of licensed assisted living communities that provide long-term residential care and services to vulnerable Virginians.

Because assisted living communities provide essential personal care, medication management, and supportive services around the clock, staffing challenges can have an immediate impact on resident care. Unlike many industries, assisted living providers cannot reduce operations or postpone services when employees are absent. Communities must continue to meet residents’ daily care needs while maintaining compliance with state licensing requirements, ensuring adequate staffing, and responding to unforeseen employee absences without interrupting services. VALA encourages the Commission to consider these unique operational realities when developing regulations and to provide flexibility wherever the statute allows so that employers can effectively balance employee leave benefits with their ongoing responsibility to provide uninterrupted care to vulnerable Virginians.

VALA also encourages the Commission to develop regulations that minimize unnecessary administrative burdens, particularly for small and medium-sized assisted living communities that often have limited human resources personnel. Many assisted living administrators are responsible for multiple operational functions, including regulatory compliance, human resources, admissions, resident care oversight, and business operations. Regulations should utilize standardized forms, electronic reporting systems, and streamlined documentation requirements whenever possible to reduce administrative complexity while ensuring effective program administration. Coordination with existing documentation requirements under other federal and state employment laws should also be considered to avoid unnecessary duplication and conflicting employer obligations.

As the Commission develops the Paid Family and Medical Leave regulations, clear guidance regarding the interaction between PFML and existing employment laws will be essential. Assisted living providers already administer a variety of federal and state leave requirements, including the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, workers’ compensation programs, employer-sponsored leave policies, and other statutory leave requirements. Regulations should clearly explain employer responsibilities, documentation expectations, notice requirements, and the coordination of these various leave programs to promote consistent administration and reduce confusion for both employers and employees.

Timely communication regarding employee eligibility determinations and leave benefit determinations will also be critical for assisted living community employers. Assisted living communities must often make immediate staffing decisions to ensure resident care needs continue to be met. Prompt claim determinations, efficient communication between the Commission and employers, clearly defined documentation timelines, and an effective appeals process will help employers appropriately plan staffing while providing employees with timely access to program benefits.

VALA supports reasonable verification standards that protect the integrity of the Paid Family and Medical Leave program while avoiding unnecessary burdens on employees with legitimate claims. Appropriate safeguards against fraud and misuse will help preserve public confidence in the program while ensuring that benefits remain available for individuals who qualify under the law. Regulations should seek to strike an appropriate balance between program integrity and efficient access to benefits.

Because this program represents a significant new benefit for both employers and employees, VALA encourages the Commission to place a strong emphasis on education and outreach prior to implementation. Employer guidance documents, frequently asked questions, webinars, model notices, sample policies, and implementation checklists will greatly assist employers in understanding their obligations and complying with the new requirements. Early and ongoing educational efforts will help reduce confusion, improve compliance, and promote consistent administration throughout the Commonwealth.

VALA also encourages the Commission to provide employers with sufficient time following adoption of the final regulations to implement necessary operational changes before program requirements become employers are expected to comply with the final regulations. Employers will need adequate time to update employee handbooks, payroll systems, leave policies, internal procedures, and staff training programs. Providing meaningful implementation time after regulations are finalized will facilitate smoother compliance and reduce administrative challenges.

Finally, VALA encourages the Commission to recognize the ongoing workforce shortages affecting Virginia’s assisted living communities. Recruiting and retaining qualified nurses, medication aides, direct care staff, dietary personnel, and other essential employees remain one of the industry’s greatest challenges. Extended employee absences frequently require communities to rely upon overtime, temporary staffing agencies, shift incentives, or other costly staffing solutions to maintain continuity of resident care. As regulations are developed, VALA encourages the Commission to consider implementation approaches that support employees’ access to paid family and medical leave while also recognizing the operational realities of licensed assisted living communities responsible for delivering continuous care to vulnerable populations. Staffing shortages in assisted living communities not only affect employers but also have the potential to impact continuity of care, resident relationships, and workforce stability.

VALA believes thoughtful implementation of the Paid Family and Medical Leave program can successfully balance the important objectives of supporting Virginia’s workforce while recognizing the unique responsibilities of assisted living communities to provide safe, uninterrupted care and services to residents throughout the Commonwealth. Because the Paid Family and Medical Leave program will affect employers of varying sizes and industries across the Commonwealth, continued stakeholder engagement will help ensure the final regulations are practical, understandable, and capable of consistent implementation. VALA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments during this early stage of the regulatory process and looks forward to participating in future stakeholder discussions as draft regulations are developed.

July 15, 2026

Ms. Ashley Ervin
Assistant Commissioner for Law and Policy
Virginia Employment Commission
6606 W. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230

Re: NOIRA for Paid Family and Medical Leave Implementation Regulations

Dear Ms. Ervin,

The Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Virginia Employment Commission’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding implementation of Virginia’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program.

The Chamber recognizes and respects the intent of the law, and we also believe that implementation must recognize the practical realities faced by employers. Businesses cannot operate without their employees. A 12-week absence represents nearly one quarter of a working year. For a small business, the absence of even one employee may mean the loss of a significant share of its workforce.

For larger employers, simultaneous, consecutive, or intermittent leave events can create serious operational challenges across production, customer service, health care, defense, construction, hospitality, nonprofit, and professional service environments. The Chamber’s comments are offered in that spirit… not to detract from the purpose of the statute, but to ensure that the rules are clear, workable, and protective of both employees and employers.

The Virginia Peninsula Chamber echoes the sentiments expressed by the Virginia Chamber of Commerce in its comments. We agree that this rulemaking is unusually complex and will require adequate time, transparency, stakeholder engagement, actuarial review, small-business impact analysis, and clear guidance on private plans, intermittent leave, contribution rates, and employer compliance obligations. We respectfully add the following recommendations from the perspective of employers on the Virginia Peninsula.

First, VEC should establish clear rules preventing unintended benefit stacking above regular wages. The statute allows PFML payments to be coordinated with employer-provided disability or family care leave benefits, but the regulations should define how that coordination works. Without clear rules, an employee could potentially receive state PFML benefits at the same time as employer-provided paid leave, short-term disability, PTO, salary continuation, or other wage-replacement benefits in a way that exceeds 100 percent of normal wages. That result would be difficult to justify to employers and employees who are funding the program through payroll contributions. It could also increase pressure on the Trust Fund and distort future contribution-rate assumptions.

The Chamber recommends that VEC define “coordinated” to include a dollar-for-dollar coordination of wage-replacement benefits for the same qualifying event and same period of leave. Total wage replacement from all sources should not exceed 100% of the employee’s regular average weekly wages unless an employer voluntarily elects to provide a supplemental benefit above that threshold. VEC should also clarify that an employer policy complying with this regulatory coordination framework does not violate the statute’s anti-diminishment language.

Also, VEC should require timely employer notification when claims are filed, approved, denied, modified, extended, or withdrawn. Employers need timely notice to plan staffing, manage payroll, coordinate benefits, preserve health coverage, and avoid mistakenly treating a protected absence as unexcused. Notice only after a claim has been approved may come too late for practical business operations.

The Chamber recommends that VEC notify an employer within five business days after a PFML claim is filed and again within five business days after the claim is approved, denied, modified, extended, or withdrawn. Employer notices should include the employee’s name, anticipated start date, expected duration, whether the leave is continuous or intermittent, and the general leave category, while protecting confidential medical or safety-related information. VEC should provide these notices through a secure employer portal.

We also believe that VEC should better define employee notice obligations. The statute requires employees to notify employers “as soon as practicable,” but that phrase needs clarity. For foreseeable leave, employees should be required to provide reasonable advance notice, preferably at least 30 days where practicable. For unforeseeable leave, employees should provide notice as soon as practicable under the circumstances and, when possible, use the employer’s ordinary call-in or leave-request procedures.

The Chamber further recommends that an employee who files a PFML claim with VEC should notify the employer no later than the next business day after filing, unless emergency circumstances make that impracticable. Regulations should also provide a good-faith safe harbor for employers that apply a neutral attendance policy before receiving notice from either the employee or VEC that the absence may qualify for PFML protection.

Also, VEC should clarify the 120-day employment requirement for job restoration. The statute does not specify whether the 120 days are calendar days, business days, workdays, days on payroll, or hours worked. The Chamber recommends a simple, uniform rule… The 120 day period should be measured as 120 consecutive calendar days of active employment with the current employer, beginning on the employee’s date of hire and ending on the day before PFML leave begins. The regulations should also clarify how breaks in service, rehires, successor employers, and transfers among affiliated entities are treated. A clear statewide standard will reduce disputes and help employers and employees understand job-restoration rights before leave begins.

VEC should also clarify that PFML leave does not create a greater right to reinstatement than the employee would have had if continuously employed. If an employee’s position would have been eliminated due to a legitimate reduction in force, project completion, contract expiration, shift elimination, or other business reason unrelated to the leave, the employer should not be required to restore the employee to a position that no longer exists, provided the employer can demonstrate the action would have occurred regardless of the leave.

VEC should also adopt clear rules for intermittent and reduced-schedule leave. Intermittent leave is often the most difficult form of leave for employers to administer. The regulations should align with federal FMLA standards where appropriate, including clear rules on minimum leave increments, certification, recertification, scheduling, and temporary transfer to an equivalent position when necessary to accommodate recurring intermittent leave. A temporary transfer with equivalent pay, benefits, and seniority, used to accommodate foreseeable intermittent leave, should not be treated as retaliation or demotion.

Also, VEC should strengthen application integrity while respecting legitimate claims. The Chamber recommends that all PFML applications include a sworn attestation that the information provided is true and complete. This would not burden legitimate claimants but would strengthen fraud prevention and protect the integrity of the Trust Fund. VEC should also ensure that any expansion of the categories of health care providers authorized to certify PFML claims occurs through formal regulatory notice and comment rather than informal administrative action.

Also, the statute requires employers to maintain health care benefits during leave and requires employees to continue paying their share of premiums. The regulations should specify what happens if an employee fails to make required premium payments. The Chamber recommends a process under which an employer may terminate coverage after providing 30 days’ written notice of overdue payment and intent to terminate, provided the rule is applied consistently with other leave situations. VEC should also clarify that an employer’s obligation applies to employer-administered group health benefits and does not extend to separate individual policies the employer does not administer, select, or fund.

Finally, the Chamber urges VEC to convene a regulatory advisory panel with broad employer representation, including small businesses, large employers, nonprofits, insurers, payroll professionals, human resources professionals, and employment counsel. Our Chamber would be pleased to assist in this effort.

The Chamber appreciates VEC’s work on this complex program. Clear regulations will help ensure that employees receive the benefits intended by the General Assembly while allowing employers to continue operating, serving customers, meeting contracts, and supporting Virginia’s economy.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert S. McKenna

President/CEO

Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce

Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Foundation

Virginia Employment Commission

Richmond, Virginia

Re:  Comment of the National Payroll Reporting Consortium on the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action — Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program

The National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Virginia Employment Commission’s (the “Commission”) Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding implementation of Virginia’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) Insurance Program, established by Chapters 981 and 1093 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly.

NPRC is a non-profit trade association whose members provide payroll processing and employment tax services to more than one and a half million employers, representing well over one-third of the private sector workforce in the United States.

Because our members provide payroll services and file wage and tax reports on behalf of employers across every state, NPRC has a longstanding interest in promoting reporting requirements that are efficient, administrable, and protective of both employer and employee interests.

NPRC members will be responsible for operationalizing much of this program on behalf of Virginia employers — calculating and withholding contributions, remitting funds, filing wage reports, administering private-plan elections, and reflecting the tax treatment of benefits. Our comments therefore focus on areas where the statute affords the Commission regulatory flexibility and where clear, early, and standardized rules will materially reduce implementation cost and error, drawing on our members’ experience implementing similar programs in other states. We respectfully offer the following recommendations.

1.  Private plan coverage periods and election windows aligned to the calendar year

We recommend that the regulations establish private plan coverage periods that coincide with the calendar year, with mandatory minimum election periods of no less than one full calendar year, and that they prevent an employee from participating in both a private plan and the state plan during the same calendar year. In several states, rules permitting mid-year or quarterly transitions between the state plan and private plans have produced significant administrative difficulty: employers and their payroll providers must operate dual contribution regimes within a single year, reconcile split premium remittances, restart wage bases mid-year, and issue corrected or duplicative reporting. Aligning coverage and election periods to the calendar year — which is also the federal tax year and the natural boundary for wage reporting and Form W-2 preparation — avoids these problems, simplifies reconciliation, and reduces the risk of premium gaps or double-collection. A minimum one-year commitment also promotes actuarial stability and discourages adverse selection.

2.  Early implementation of the private plan approval workflow

We recommend that the Commission stand up its private plan application, review, and approval process — including forms, plan standards, any security or solvency requirements, and the submission portal — well in advance of the April 1, 2028 contribution start date, so that employers with qualifying private plans may obtain approval effective as of the first date contributions would otherwise be due. In other states, private-plan approval mechanisms became available only shortly before, or in some cases after, contributions began. As a result, employers who intended to satisfy their obligations through a private plan were nonetheless required to enroll in and remit to the state program on an interim basis, then seek refunds or transfers once their private plan was approved — reintroducing precisely the split-year, dual-participation complications described above. Publishing private-plan standards and opening the approval workflow early, ideally well ahead of the October 1, 2027 initial rate determination, would allow employers and their payroll providers to configure systems correctly before go-live and to elect private-plan coverage from day one.

3.  A clear definition of covered employment and of wages subject to premium

We recommend that the regulations specifically define the wages and forms of compensation that are subject to PFML premiums and those that are excluded. Payroll systems must be programmed to a precise wage base, and ambiguity on this point is among the largest drivers of implementation cost and reporting error. In particular, we ask that the rules address the treatment of tips and gratuities, commissions and bonuses, severance and other separation pay, equity and other non-cash compensation, elective deferrals and pre-tax contributions (such as Section 125 cafeteria-plan and Section 401(k) amounts), third-party sick pay, and imputed income such as group-term life insurance, and that the rules confirm, consistent with the statute, that PFML contributions are calculated only on wages up to the Social Security wage base. To the fullest extent the statute permits, we encourage the Commission to conform the PFML wage definition to the one already used for Virginia unemployment insurance purposes. Because the Commission administers both programs, aligning the two definitions would allow employers and providers to rely on the subject-wage definition they already apply for unemployment insurance rather than build and maintain a separate calculation, materially reducing burden and error.

Relatedly, we ask that the regulations provide a clear definition of the employees and the employment covered by the program. Employers and providers would benefit in particular from knowing whether covered employment is intended to mirror the definition used for Virginia unemployment insurance (SUI). If the two are not aligned, the regulations should identify the categories of workers who may be subject to PFML but not to SUI, or the reverse, because any divergence requires employers and providers to maintain a separate population of covered workers and a separate eligibility determination, adding materially to implementation complexity and to the risk of error.  With respect to employees who perform services in multiple states, we encourage the department to consider using the same localization test as used for unemployment insurance if not already defined under the statute.

4.  Flexibility for employers to catch up employee contributions when net pay is insufficient

We recommend that the regulations expressly permit an employer to recover, in a subsequent pay period within the same calendar quarter, the employee share of the premium that could not be withheld from a given paycheck because of insufficient net pay. This situation arises most acutely for tipped employees, whose direct cash wages may be small relative to the total (tip-inclusive) wages on which premiums are assessed, and also for employees with substantial pre-tax deductions or wage garnishments. Absent an authorized catch-up mechanism, an employer faced with insufficient net pay must either advance the employee’s premium with no clear means of recoupment or under-withhold and fall out of compliance. A clear rule permitting later-period catch-up — together with guidance on its interaction with minimum-wage and permissible-deduction limits — would resolve this recurring problem and is consistent with the approach taken in other states.

We ask, in particular, that the regulations address the interaction with minimum-wage limits. No deduction may cause an employee’s wages, after the deduction, to fall below the minimum wage required to be paid to the employee by any applicable statute, regulation, rule, or ordinance. Where withholding the full employee premium would breach that floor, the regulations should specify the employer’s correct course of action — for example, whether the employer should carry the uncollected amount forward to a future pay period within the quarter, or instead treat the uncollected premium as an employer-paid (“pick-up”) contribution.

That choice carries tax consequences the regulations should make clear. Where an employer does not recoup a missed employee premium from subsequent pay, the unpaid employee contribution may be treated as an employer-paid, or “pick-up,” contribution. Under IRS Revenue Ruling 2025-4, an employer’s payment of an employee’s required contribution is treated as additional taxable wages to the employee and must be reported on Form W-2, creating additional payroll reporting and withholding obligations that the employer must administer. Unclear or unduly restrictive correction procedures would therefore expose employers to avoidable administrative complexity and compliance risk, and we encourage the Commission to provide a workable and explicit correction path.

5.  Wage reporting and contribution deadlines aligned to existing unemployment insurance due dates

We recommend that PFML wage reporting and contribution remittance deadlines be set to coincide with the existing Virginia unemployment insurance quarterly due dates — the last day of the month following the close of each calendar quarter (April 30, July 31, October 31, and January 31) — and that, to the extent practicable, PFML reporting use the same filing cadence, file formats, and employer account identifiers as the existing quarterly UI wage report. Employers and payroll providers already prepare and transmit quarterly UI wage reports on this schedule. A separate PFML filing calendar would create avoidable exposure to late-filing penalties where a provider’s single quarterly process would otherwise suffice. Co-administration with the unemployment insurance system is a structural strength of Virginia’s program; aligning deadlines and formats realizes that efficiency for employers and the Commission alike.

At the same time, we ask the Commission to consider carefully the effect of combined PFML and unemployment reporting, should a single combined report be contemplated. When reports are combined, the integrity of each program can be adversely affected: a wage report or payment may be rejected for one program because of a data error affecting only the companion program, exposing the employer to penalties for information that would have been accepted had the two reports been administered separately.

We also ask the regulations to clarify the reporting obligations of employers with approved private plans — specifically, whether private-plan employers will be subject to the same quarterly wage-reporting requirements as state-plan employers. Employers and providers need to know, well before go-live, whether a private-plan election eliminates, reduces, or preserves the quarterly reporting obligation, so that systems and processes can be configured accordingly.

Finally, as the Commission develops the report specifications, we offer two practical suggestions. First, employer size is better captured through an employer’s online attestation than as a field on each quarterly report, which avoids repeated and potentially inconsistent reporting of a relatively static attribute. Second, if wages and hours are to be included on the quarterly report, we ask that the specifications state precisely which wages and which hours must, and must not, be reported, so that providers can program a single, unambiguous rule.

6.  Pay statement itemization and Form W-2 reporting of premiums

We recommend that the regulations address how PFML premiums are to be reflected on employee pay statements and on Form W-2, so that employers and providers can program consistent, compliant wage statements from the outset. On the pay statement, we ask the Commission to specify whether, and how, the employee-paid PFML premium must be itemized as a separate deduction. For year-end reporting, we ask the regulations to confirm the Form W-2 treatment of both the employee premium and any employer “pick-up” of the employee’s required contribution. Under IRS Revenue Ruling 2025-4, the employee’s own required contribution is included in the employee’s Form W-2 wages, and an employer’s voluntary payment of the employee’s required contribution is likewise treated as additional taxable wages reportable on Form W-2. Confirming these points — including any Box 14 or comparable reporting the Commission expects — would allow providers to configure pay statements and Forms W-2 correctly and consistently across all Virginia employers.

7.  Clear guidance on the taxability of benefits, reflecting federal treatment

We further recommend that the regulations, in coordination with the Department of Taxation as appropriate, provide clear guidance on the tax treatment of PFML benefits — an area that payroll providers must reflect in withholding, wage statements, and information returns, and that current federal guidance addresses only in part. Specifically, we ask that the Commission clarify: (a) whether PFML benefits are subject to Virginia individual income tax and, if so, whether Virginia income tax will be withheld from benefits or a withholding election offered to claimants; (b) whether benefits, or any portion of contributions, are treated as “wages” subject to Virginia unemployment insurance contributions; and (c) the information-reporting mechanism the Commonwealth will use to report benefits to recipients and to Virginia Tax.

We further recommend that Virginia’s treatment be expressly reconciled with the federal framework so that state and federal reporting are consistent. Under IRS Revenue Ruling 2025-4, family-leave benefits are includible in the recipient’s federal gross income but are not wages for federal employment-tax purposes; medical-leave benefits attributable to the employee’s own contributions are excluded from income, while the portion attributable to employer contributions is includible and treated as third-party sick pay subject to FICA. Because that characterization turns on the source of the contributions funding a given benefit, we encourage the Commission to design its contribution accounting and recordkeeping so that the fund can track and report the employer-versus-employee contribution attribution necessary to characterize benefits correctly at year end. We note as well that the federal transition relief under Revenue Ruling 2025-4, as extended through calendar year 2026 by Notice 2026-6, will have expired before Virginia begins paying benefits on December 1, 2028; Virginia therefore has the advantage — not shared by the earliest-adopting states — of building fully compliant benefit-side reporting and withholding from the program’s first benefit payment, rather than retrofitting it later. Finally, because the federal guidance does not address benefits paid under approved private plans, we ask that the regulations speak to the reporting and taxability of private-plan benefits as well, so that employers and providers administering private plans have parallel clarity.

8.  Clarification on how the program applies to Employer who Contract with Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs)

NPRC appreciates that SB 2 recognizes professional employer organization (PEO) relationships and provides important clarity regarding the treatment of client employers under the program. As the Commonwealth develops implementing regulations, NPRC encourages consideration of several additional clarifications based on lessons learned from other state paid leave programs and the unique administrative structure of PEO arrangements. Specifically, the regulations should clarify that, for purposes of determining employer size and applicable contribution requirements, employee counts are measured at the client company level rather than the PEO level; that a private paid family and medical leave plan sponsored or provided through a PEO may qualify as an approved private plan if it otherwise satisfies statutory requirements; that required contributions may be remitted by a PEO on behalf of its client companies; and that PEOs and client companies may enter into agreements under which the PEO assists with some or all of the client company’s administrative, reporting, and compliance responsibilities under the program. These clarifications would provide certainty to employers, employees, insurers, regulators, and service providers, promote efficient program administration, and align implementation with established employment and benefits administration practices.

An offer of assistance

NPRC and its members have collaborated with a number of other states in the design and implementation of their paid family and medical leave programs, and we would welcome the opportunity to serve as a resource to the Commission as it develops these regulations. We are glad to share operational detail, file-format and reconciliation experience, and lessons learned from other jurisdictions, and we extend an open invitation to the Commission to contact the undersigned at any time, with any questions, and at any stage of this rulemaking.

NPRC appreciates the opportunity to comment and looks forward to the continued development of Virginia’s program. Thank you for your consideration of the recommendations above, and please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or to arrange a follow-up discussion.

Sincerely,

Kurt Shoemaker

Policy Director, National Payroll Reporting Consortium

kshoemaker@paylocity.com 603-689-5613

Gusto  •  Heartland Payroll Solutions  •  Intuit  •  isolved  •  Netchex  •  Paychex  •  Paycom  •  Paycor

Paylocity  •  PPI Business Services  •  PrimePay  •  Rippling  •  Symmetry Software  •  TriNet  •  UKG

The Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Virginia Employment Commission's Notice of Intended Regulatory Action to implement Virginia's Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program.

The VMA represents manufacturers across the Commonwealth, ranging from small family-owned businesses to some of the world's largest industrial employers. Manufacturers operate in highly competitive national and global markets and rely on predictable regulatory frameworks that protect employees while allowing employers to effectively manage complex operations, production schedules, and workforce needs.

Throughout consideration of the underlying legislation, the VMA worked extensively with members of the General Assembly, the Governor's Office, and other stakeholders to improve the legislation's clarity, consistency, and administrative workability. As the Commission develops regulations, we respectfully encourage continued stakeholder engagement to ensure the program is implemented efficiently, transparently, and consistently with legislative intent.

At this early stage of the rulemaking process, the VMA respectfully offers the following recommendations to help ensure the program is implemented in a practical, transparent, and administratively efficient manner.

Private Plan Administration

The legislation appropriately authorizes employers to satisfy their obligations through approved private plans. The regulations should establish an efficient, predictable, and timely approval process with objective standards, reasonable review timelines, streamlined renewal procedures, and practical mechanisms for plan modifications. Employers should have confidence that private plan applications will receive prompt review and consistent administration. The regulations should also establish clear standards for plan amendments, renewals, and transitions between private and state-administered coverage to minimize administrative disruption for employers and employees.

Coordination with Existing Leave and Wage Replacement Programs

Many manufacturers already provide paid leave benefits that exceed statutory minimum requirements. The regulations should clearly explain how employer-provided paid leave, federal Family and Medical Leave Act requirements, disability benefits, workers' compensation, and other leave programs interact with Virginia's PFML program.

The statute permits but does not require coordination of PFML benefits with employer-funded disability coverage. It does not define what it means for benefits to be "coordinated," does not cap combined benefits, or address how employers may administer employer-funded disability or paid leave benefits in conjunction with PFML while complying with the statute's anti-diminishment provision. Without regulatory clarification, employers may be unable to effectively coordinate overlapping wage replacement benefits, resulting in duplicative employer costs and the potential for employees to receive combined wage replacement that exceeds their normal compensation. Clear coordination rules will reduce confusion for both employers and employees, minimize unnecessary administrative burdens and duplicative employer costs, and help preserve employer-sponsored benefits that exceed statutory minimum requirements and support the recruitment and retention of a talented workforce.

The regulations should also provide clear guidance regarding coordination when employees receive wage replacement or leave benefits through other federal or state programs, such as workers' compensation or benefits under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Contribution Rate Methodology

Because Virginia is implementing a new program without historical claims experience, the VMA encourages the Commission to make publicly available, to the extent practicable, the actuarial assumptions, utilization projections, and other analyses used to establish contribution rates. Transparency regarding the program's financial assumptions will improve confidence in the rate-setting process, assist employers with long-term budgeting, and allow stakeholders to provide more informed feedback as the program evolves.

Health Insurance Continuation

The regulations should clarify employer and employee responsibilities regarding continuation of employer-sponsored health coverage during leave, including procedures for employee premium payments during periods of leave and appropriate processes when required employee contributions are not timely made. Clear guidance will reduce uncertainty while protecting both employers and employees.

Eligibility, Concurrent Employment, and Benefit Administration

The regulations should provide clear guidance regarding eligibility determinations, calculation of benefit amounts, payroll contributions, and the treatment of individuals with multiple employers or concurrent employment. Many Virginians work for multiple employers simultaneously, and the regulations should clearly explain how wages from multiple employers will be treated for contribution and benefit purposes. Clear standards will promote consistent administration, reduce unnecessary disputes, and help prevent duplicate or improper benefit payments.

Payroll Contributions and Employer Administration

Because payroll systems require significant planning, programming, testing, and implementation, employers and payroll vendors will need clear guidance well in advance of the program's effective date. The regulations should clearly address contribution calculations, payroll withholding procedures, reporting requirements, correction processes, administrative timelines, and technical specifications. If the Commission exercises its statutory authority to establish a minimum claim threshold of less than eight hours of leave in a workweek, the regulations should also clearly explain the circumstances under which a lower threshold would apply to allow employers and payroll vendors sufficient time to make necessary system and administrative updates. Early publication of standardized forms, implementation guidance, and educational resources will further support successful implementation.

The regulations should also clarify employer responsibilities for administering PFML contributions when employees are not receiving regular wages through the employer's payroll system, including periods of workers' compensation, military leave, or other circumstances in which regular payroll withholding may not occur.

Documentation and Certification Standards

The regulations should establish objective documentation requirements sufficient to verify eligibility while protecting employee privacy and minimizing unnecessary administrative burdens. Certification requirements should be clear, standardized, and proportional to the nature of the requested leave. Employers and employees alike benefit from predictable documentation standards that reduce disputes and promote consistent administration. The regulations should also clarify when employers may require a fitness-for-duty certification before an employee returns from leave taken for the employee's own serious health condition, particularly where employees perform safety-sensitive duties. Clear standards will promote workplace safety while protecting employee rights.

Notice Requirements and Employer Communications

The Commission should develop standardized employee notices, model forms, and administrative guidance that employers may voluntarily use to satisfy statutory notice obligations. Providing uniform materials will promote statewide consistency while reducing compliance costs, particularly for small and medium-sized employers. The regulations should clarify the statutory requirement that employees provide notice "as soon as practicable" in situations involving unforeseeable leave. The regulations should also establish clear timelines for Commission notification to employers when a claim is filed and when a determination has been made. Timely notification is essential to allow employers to arrange staffing, coordinate benefits, administer leave, and comply with other legal obligations. Whenever practicable, these notifications should be provided electronically through the Commission's employer portal or similar secure systems.

Fraud Prevention and Program Integrity

Program integrity is essential to maintaining public confidence in Virginia's Paid Family and Medical Leave program. The regulations should establish procedures for verifying eligibility, addressing misrepresentations, recovering improper payments, protecting confidential information, and providing employers with reasonable opportunities to respond when factual disputes arise. The regulations should also establish consequences for individuals who knowingly and intentionally submit fraudulent claims or provide false information to obtain benefits. The Commission should also consider requiring applicants to certify, under penalty of perjury or other appropriate legal attestation, that information submitted in support of benefit claims is complete and accurate. Such certifications are common in public benefit programs and help strengthen program integrity.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Commission should establish procedures that allow employers to report suspected fraud and provide relevant information during investigations and appeals. If the Commission determines that additional statutory authority is necessary to strengthen fraud prevention, recover improper payments, or address other program integrity issues, the VMA encourages the Commission to identify those issues and develop recommendations for future legislative consideration.

Due Process and Appeals

The regulations should provide transparent procedures governing determinations, reconsideration, appeals, timelines, evidentiary standards, and opportunities for employers to provide relevant information. Predictable administrative procedures benefit all parties and promote confidence in the program's fairness.

Technology and Administrative Efficiency

Several states that have implemented paid family and medical leave programs have experienced significant claims processing backlogs, resulting in delayed benefit payments and increased administrative burdens for employees and employers alike. Virginia has the advantage of learning from those experiences. The VMA encourages the Commission to leverage modern technology, including automation and, where appropriate, artificial intelligence and data analytics, to improve administrative efficiency, support timely claims processing, and strengthen program integrity while preserving appropriate human oversight for eligibility determinations and other discretionary decisions. Efficient administration benefits employees through more timely benefit determinations, reduces compliance costs for employers, and supports the program's long-term financial sustainability, helping to keep contribution rates as low as possible.

Implementation Timeline and Stakeholder Engagement

Given the complexity of the new program, the VMA encourages the Commission to publish draft guidance, conduct stakeholder meetings, and provide opportunities for ongoing collaboration throughout the regulatory process. Early engagement with employers, payroll providers, insurers, employee representatives, and other stakeholders will improve implementation and reduce the likelihood of unintended consequences.

Conclusion

Virginia's manufacturing sector supports policies that provide clarity, consistency, and administrative efficiency while allowing employers to remain competitive and continue creating high-quality jobs throughout the Commonwealth. The success of Virginia's Paid Family and Medical Leave program will depend not only on the statute enacted by the General Assembly, but also on the clarity, predictability, and practicality of the regulations adopted by the Commission. The VMA appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and looks forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the Commission throughout the rulemaking process.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.