I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the development of regulations implementing Virginia's Paid Sick Leave law.

I operate salon businesses in both Virginia and Tennessee. My Virginia workforce is relatively small—approximately 12 employees—but managing compliance across two states requires maintaining different payroll, leave, and administrative processes. I support providing employees with paid time off when they are sick. My comments are intended to encourage regulations that achieve the law's purpose while minimizing unnecessary administrative burden for employers who already provide meaningful paid leave.

First, I encourage the Department to clearly recognize that existing paid time off (PTO) policies may satisfy the law when employees receive at least an equivalent benefit. Employers should not be required to create a separate sick leave bank solely because PTO may also be used for vacation or personal reasons. A flexible PTO policy often provides employees with greater benefit than separate leave categories and is easier for both employers and employees to understand.

Second, the regulations should provide flexibility for employers that front-load PTO rather than requiring strict accrual calculations. Many employers provide paid leave at the beginning of the benefit year because it is easier to administer and gives employees immediate access to paid time off. The regulations should clearly explain how front-loaded policies can comply with the law without requiring duplicate tracking systems.

Third, additional guidance would be helpful for employers operating in multiple states. Businesses with locations in both Virginia and neighboring states must balance differing legal requirements while maintaining consistent policies whenever possible. Clear examples and model compliance approaches would reduce confusion and improve voluntary compliance.

Fourth, the Department should recognize the operational realities of appointment-based businesses such as salons. When an employee is unexpectedly absent, employers often need prompt notice so appointments can be rescheduled and clients can be informed. The regulations should clarify that employers may maintain reasonable call-in procedures designed to facilitate business operations, provided those procedures do not interfere with employees' ability to use protected leave.

I also encourage the Department to consider the administrative process that occurs when an employee uses paid sick leave for only a portion of a workday. For many small employers, an employee's request is not entered directly into a sophisticated human resources system. Instead, the employee notifies a manager, the manager adjusts the daily schedule, records the absence, communicates the information to an office administrator or payroll provider, and payroll then determines how the time should be coded and paid. Every additional leave category or unique tracking requirement increases the number of administrative steps, creates additional opportunities for error, and consumes time that small business owners and managers would otherwise spend serving employees and customers.

The regulations should strive to simplify this process wherever possible by allowing employers to use existing timekeeping and payroll systems when they already provide equivalent paid leave benefits. Clear guidance on how partial-day leave should be reported, documented, tracked, and processed would greatly assist employers in achieving consistent compliance without creating unnecessary administrative complexity.

Finally, I encourage the Department to include practical examples addressing common administrative questions, including rehired employees, carryover, front-loaded PTO, waiting periods, equivalent PTO policies, and partial-day absences. Examples illustrating compliant reporting and payroll practices would be especially valuable for small employers that do not have dedicated human resources staff. Regulations that emphasize practical administration, rather than requiring additional layers of recordkeeping, will encourage better compliance while preserving the law's intended protections for employees.

Thank you for considering these comments. Regulations that provide flexibility, clarity, and practical guidance will benefit both employees and employers while promoting consistent compliance across the Commonwealth.

As VDOLI drafts regulations for the new paid sick leave law, I urge the Department to prioritize two things:

1. A fast, low-barrier appeal process. Workers denied leave shouldn't have to hire a lawyer or lose pay while waiting. The regulations should set clear timelines for reviewing disputed denials through a simple administrative complaint process.

2. Tight, specific definitions. Terms like "reasonable documentation" or valid reasons to question a request should be clearly defined in the rule itself and not left to employer discretion. Vague language becomes a loophole, and the workers who most need this leave are least able to fight a wrongful denial.

Employers should also be required to give a written reason for any denial, so there's a record to appeal.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is pleased to submit comments in response to the Department of Labor and Industry’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding the development of regulations as required by Chapters 1128 and 1129 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 ensures employers are able to comply.

1. Good-Faith Compliance Should Not Be Penalized

Chapters 1128 and 1129 recognize that enforcement should distinguish between willful noncompliance with the statute and inadvertent, good-faith violations. § 40.1-33.6:7(D) explicitly provides for an opportunity for employers to correct alleged violations, and subsection (F) limits the imposition of penalties to knowing violations of the law. These provisions clearly envision a regulatory framework which seeks to hold bad actors accountable without unnecessarily burdening employers who operate, and will continue to operate, in good faith. To ensure this vision is executed in practice, we respectfully urge the Department’s rulemaking include the following actions:

• Define the “reasonable time to correct” as no less than 30 days from notice of an alleged violation, and further afford employers the opportunity to request an extension of the 30-day period for good cause;
• Clarify that a “knowing violation” means an employer has either (i) actual knowledge an act violates the statute, (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the requirements of the statute, or (iii) acts in reckless disregard for the requirements of the statute, not simply technical noncompliance where an employer acts in good faith and upon reasonable grounds to believe they were compliant.
• Clarify the collective bargaining exemption in § 40.1-33.6:2(M), specifically whether the exemption applies to subsequent collective bargaining agreements or collective bargaining agreements that last beyond December 31, 2030;
• Clarify which, if any, requirements of the statute apply to an employer who voluntarily provides employees paid time off in excess of that required by the statute;
• Define the terms “interfere with, restrain, deny the exercise of, or deny the attempt to exercise…” in § 40.1-33.6:6(B), and provide specific examples of acts or omissions that meet this standard;
• Ensure the “informal conference” process created by § 40.1-33.6:7(E) appropriately coordinates with the cure period in subsection (D). Coordination between these subsections will ensure that employers have a legitimate opportunity to resolve first-time, unintentional violations before civil penalties are assessed; and
• Develop and make available model notice and recordkeeping templates to ensure employers, particularly small businesses without dedicated human resources or legal teams, can comply with the requirements of the law. Model templates or similar resources can benefit employers, employees, and the Department alike by fostering consistency in implementation across the Commonwealth.

In all areas of the rulemaking, we respectfully urge the Department to establish clear and workable regulations that ensure employers can implement the requirements of Chapters 1128 and 1129 in good-faith and which make a clear distinction between administrative or technical violations and knowing, willful violations.

2. Internal Contradictions and Conflicts with the Virginia Human Rights Act

Chapters 1128 and 1129 create an unresolved tension that we respectfully urge the Department to address in its rulemaking before it becomes an unnecessary source of employer liability. Subsection (G) of § 40.1-33.6:3 broadly prohibits an employer from requiring “disclosure of details of health information about an employee or an employee’s family member . . . as a condition of providing paid sick leave,” and further requires that any information the employer may possess be treated as confidential and disclosed only to the employee or with the employee’s consent.

Subsequently, subsection (H) permits an employer to require, “for paid sick leave of three or more consecutive days . . . related to subdivision A 1 or 2, documentation signed by a health care professional indicating that paid sick leave is necessary.” A signed certification of medical necessity is necessarily a disclosure of health information. In other words, the statute simultaneously forbids requiring disclosure of health information “details” while authorizing disclosure of those details as a condition of leave for longer absences. Chapters 1128 and 1129 do not provide a definition or other information which would allow for distinction between a compliant certification and a detail that would violate the provisions of subsection (G). We commend this inconsistency to the Department’s attention, and respectfully urge the Department’s rulemaking to specify, with clear examples, what a certification as authorized by subsection (H) may or may not contain. In the absence of clarification, it is unclear how an employer may request documentation for an extended absence without inadvertently violating the prohibiting on disclosure of “details of health information.” Failure to clarify this issue would create unnecessary liability for employers across the Commonwealth while also creating uncertainty for employees, health care providers, and the Department.

The ambiguity outlined above is further complicated in cases where the underlying absence relates to a disability under the Virginia Human Rights Act. § 2.2-3905.1(B)(5) requires covered employers to engage in “a timely, good faith interactive process” with an employee who has requested a disability accommodation, while § 2.2-3905.1(B)(2) prohibits an employer from taking “adverse action against an employee who requests or uses a reasonable accommodation. In cases where an absence of three or more days is disability-related, the certification authorized by § 40.1-33.6:3(H) functions as a disability-related medical inquiry. Yet Chapters 1128 and 1129 are silent on how that inquiry should relate to or be reconciled with the required interactive process.

Given these requirements, an employer following § 40.1-33.6:3(H) in good faith could find the request for documentation characterized in a separate proceeding as non-interactive or, worse, as an adverse action related to use of a reasonable accommodation. Subsection (G)’s default confidentiality rule, which limits disclosure to the employee or with the consent of the employee, further complicates the issue because a “timely, good faith interactive process” is likely to require an employer to share and discuss relevant health information internally among supervisors, human resources, and/or safety personnel to evaluate accommodation options. In the absence of clarification through legislative action, the Virginia Chamber respectfully urges the Department to provide clarification through this rulemaking process. We respectfully urge the Department to consider the following actions:

• Clarify, through regulatory definitions and illustrative examples, the boundary between “reasonable documentation” authorized under subsection (H) and “details of health information” prohibited under subsection (G);
• Provide that when a documentation request under subsection (H) coincides with a pending or anticipated disability accommodation request, an employer may satisfy the requirements of both statutes through a single, coordinated request rather than separate, potentially duplicative, requests;
• Clarify that an employer’s good-faith request for subsection (H) documentation alone does not constitute an adverse action or a failure to engage in an interactive process under § 2.2-3905.1; and
• Consult with the Office of the Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights in this aspect of the rulemaking process, as the Department’s regulations cannot bind that office’s interpretation of the Virginia Human Rights Act. Consistency between the Department and the Office of the Attorney General is essential to ensuring employers are not exposed to liability for good-faith compliance efforts.

Clarification of potential contradictions within Chapters 1128 and 1129 and as they relate to the Virginia Human Rights Act is essential for employers to implement paid sick leave requirements across the Commonwealth, and we respectfully urge the Department to acknowledge these statutory deficiencies in its rulemaking to better direct legislative attention to the issues presented here.

3. Ensuring Constitutionality of Investigative Entry and Warrantless Searches

§ 40.1-33.6:7(C) authorizes the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry to initiate investigations into alleged violations of the statute. Under subsection (C), the Commissioner or a designee is afforded authority to enter an employer’s premises and is granted subpoena authority. Subsection (C) does not include an explicit warrant requirement, nor does it afford an employer the right to refuse a warrantless search. The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that general commercial employers are entitled to the due process protections of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)), excepted in narrow circumstances for “closely regulated” industries (New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987)). Because Chapters 1128 and 1129 apply broadly to employers across the Commonwealth, the “closely regulated” exception does not apply and regulatory clarity is necessary for employers and the Department alike. As such, we respectfully urge the Department to adopt regulations which:

• Require that premises entry for investigative purposes proceed with the consent of the employer or, in the absence of consent, proceed through the statute’s subpoena mechanism or through the process outlined in § 40.1-49.9 of the Code of Virginia;
• Specify procedures for employers to object to or seek review of a demand for entry or records before compliance is required; and
• Clarify that “records” subject to review are limited in scope to those reasonably related to the alleged violation under investigation and that § 40.1-33.6:7(C) does not authorize open-ended access to all employer “records.”

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce thanks the Department for its thoughtful consideration of this comment and the issues raised, and we look forward to continued engagement and active participation with the Department as paid sick leave regulations are developed.

As an independent Personal Care Agency Owner, who's funding consists of 95% State Medicaid, the proposed Paid Sick Leave implementation on our industry will be another cost that we will not be able to make up unless, the Commonwealth increases our State Medicaid reimbursement of offset the cost. Regulatory reimbursement is fixed by the Commonwealth, and our industry does not set its rates, the rates are dictated by the Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS). With our industry having to provide Paid Sick Leave, without increased reimbursement, we will not be able to keep our doors open and in turn, will leave the most vulnerable population in the Commonwealth in a very bad situation. There are not enough beds at nursing home facilities to hold all of the individuals that receive personal care service in the confines of their own home.

Please consider our industry exempt from having to provide Paid Sick Leave or let's work together to figure out how we can keep our doors open and receive increased reimbursement for the quality service we provide.

Thank you for allowing me the time to comment on this regulatory matter.

 The recently enacted paid sick leave will have significant financial impact on Agency Directed Personal Care Providers across Virginia.  While we support providing quality benefits to our workforce, this mandate was enacted without corresponding reimbursement to fund the additional cost.  

Unlike most businesses, Medicaid-funded personal care agencies cannot increase prices to offset new state mandated expenses.  Our reimbursement rates are established by the Commonwealth, leaving providers with no mechanism to recover these costs.  Every new unfunded mandate further erodes the already thin operating margin, mandates enacted without corresponding reimbursement to fund the additional cost results in 

• Increased financial hardship for Agency Directed Personal Care providers
• Reduced services, in urban and rural areas
• Agency closures
• Thousands of elderly and disabled individuals facing reduced access to HCBS care
• A growing workforce crisis that threatens the stability of Virginia's Long term care system
• Impact to in home access to care, increasing more costly institutionalized care

This is not simply a provider issue-- it is an access to care issue.  If providers cannot afford to operate, vulnerable Virginians will lose access to critical services, and the Commonwealth's investment in community-based care will be undermined. 

I am writing to express/comment on serious concern about the real and immediate impact that Virginia’s recently enacted paid sick leave legislation will have on our agency and Agency Directed Personal Care providers across the Commonwealth.

Our agencies provide essential Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) to elderly individuals and people with disabilities who rely on daily assistance to remain safely in their homes and communities.  The legislation creates a significant unfunded mandate for providers participating in Virginia’s Medicaid-funded personal care programs.

Unlike many private businesses, Agency Directed Personal Care providers cannot simply increase the rates charged for services in order to absorb new operating costs. Our reimbursement rates are established by the Commonwealth, and those rates have not been adjusted to account for the additional expense of providing paid sick leave.

Without additional legislative funding, this mandate places an unsustainable financial burden on providers like myself who cannot simply increase their rates to absorb these new costs. The consequences are significant:

• Increased financial hardship for Agency Directed Personal Care providers.

• Small businesses being forced to reduce services or close their doors.

• Thousands of elderly individuals and people with disabilities facing reduced access to essential Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS).

• A growing workforce crisis that threatens the stability of Virginia’s long-term care system.

The Commonwealth has mandated this new employee benefit, but our reimbursement rates have not been adjusted to fund it. We need lawmakers to understand that this mandate must be accompanied by adequate reimbursement so providers can continue serving Virginia’s most vulnerable citizens.

Virginia has consistently emphasized the importance of community-based care as a cost-effective alternative to institutional placement. However, that system cannot function if the agencies responsible for delivering care are unable to meet payroll, retain caregivers, and remain financially viable.

I respectfully urge budget amendments that provide sufficient reimbursement increases for Agency Directed Personal Care providers to offset the cost of the paid sick leave requirement. Doing so will help preserve access to care for vulnerable Virginians while supporting the dedicated caregivers who make these services possible.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed mandatory paid sick leave requirements. We value and support our caregivers and understand the importance of paid sick leave. However, implementing this mandate without a corresponding increase in Medicaid reimbursement creates an unfunded financial obligation that many home care providers cannot sustain.

Home and community-based services allow thousands of elderly and disabled Virginians to remain safely in their homes while reducing the need for more costly institutional care. In fact, home care is one of the Commonwealth’s most cost-effective long-term care options. If Medicaid-funded agencies are forced to reduce services or close because of unfunded mandates, more individuals may require nursing facility placement, increasing costs to the Commonwealth while limiting access to care.

I respectfully ask that Medicaid-funded personal care providers either be exempt from this requirement or that the Commonwealth provide an appropriate increase in Medicaid reimbursement to fully offset the additional costs. Without adequate funding, this mandate places the stability of essential home care services and the vulnerable Virginians who depend on them at risk.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue.

Thank you for opportunity to provide comment on this new legislation regarding paid sick leave. My organization employees approximately 100 people, and 80% of those are part time.

We already provide a sick leave benefit to our full-time employees however, being forced to provide this benefit to employees already working a flexible, part-time schedule will be a financial burden. Most of the part-time employees work in the Personal Care line of business that is paid by Virginia Medicaid and as you know, we did not receive an increase in reimbursement to even cover the increased cost of wages (min wage increase), and to have to fund paid sick leave on top of this WILL create a financial hardship. 

It is my recommendation that part-time employees be exempted from this requirement and reserve paid sick leave as a full-time benefit. 

As an In-Home Personal Care Agency, who's funding consists of majority State Medicaid, the proposed Paid Sick Leave implementation on our industry will be another cost that we will not be able to make up unless, the Commonwealth increases our State Medicaid reimbursement to offset the cost. Regulatory reimbursement is fixed by the Commonwealth, and our industry does not set its rates, the rates are dictated by the Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS). With our industry having to provide Paid Sick Leave, without increased reimbursement, we will not be able to keep our doors open and in turn, will leave the most vulnerable population in the Commonwealth in a very bad situation. There are not enough beds at nursing home facilities to hold all of the individuals that receive personal care service in the confines of their own home.

Please consider our industry exempt from having to provide Paid Sick Leave or let's work together to figure out how we can keep our doors open and receive increased reimbursement for the quality service we provide.

Thank you for allowing me the time to comment on this regulatory matter.

As an In-Home Personal Care agency, who's funding consists of majority State Medicaid, the proposed Paid Sick Leave implementation on our industry will be another cost that we will not be able to make up unless, the Commonwealth increases our State Medicaid reimbursement to offset the cost. Regulatory reimbursements is fixed by the Commonwealth, and out industry does not set its rates, the rates are dictated by the Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS). With our industry having to provide Paid Sick Leave, without increased reimbursement, we will not be able to keep our doors open and in turn, will leave the most vulnerable population in the Commonwealth in a very bad situation. There are not enough beds at nursing home facilities to hold all of the individuals that receive personal care in the confines of their own home. 

Please consider our industry exempt from having to provide Paid Sick Leave or let's work together to figure out how we can keep our doors open and receive increased reimbursement for the quality service we provide. 

Thank you for allowing me the time to comment on this regulatory matter. 

As an agency-directed personal care provider serving Virginia Medicaid members, we support paid sick leave for our caregivers — but we have no way to cover the cost. Our revenue is set entirely by fixed Medicaid personal care rates, and this mandate is a direct cost increase we can't offset. Providers across the Commonwealth face the same problem: without a corresponding rate increase, agencies will be forced to cut caregiver hours or exit the Medicaid personal care market, reducing access to essential home-based care. We urge DOLI to coordinate with DMAS and the General Assembly to secure a rate adjustment before providers must comply.

Financial Burden 

While providers support a Paid Sick Leave policy, and considering that the majority of our clients are Medicaid patients, the current Agency-Directed personal care reimbursement rate (set by DMAS) does NOT INCLUDE FUNDING to cover this new mandate.

Without an adjustment, PROVIDERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ABSORB THE FULL COST within an already strained reimbursement structure.

AGENCY-Directed Personal Care agencies are NOT reimbursed for paid sick leave where CONSUMER-Directed Facilities ARE funded. All are under the same EDCD waiver, paid by DMAS, which is an unfair division of funds for the same services.

   Personal care agencies cannot raise prices to offset new costs and are ONLY reimbursed for Personal Care services that are delivered by the caregivers, nothing else. Paid Sick Leave is not a billable expense; therefore reimbursement/compensation is zero.

Most of our part-time employees work in the Personal Care line that is paid by Virginia Medicaid. We did not receive an increase in reimbursement to cover the increased cost of wages (min wage increase), and now we must fund paid sick leave on top of this. It WILL create financial hardship.

I respectfully ask you to consider sponsoring legislation to provide a significant reimbursement rate increase for Agency-Directed Personal Care services to allow agencies to provide caregivers, nurses, and staff adequate pay and to be able to implement the paid sick leave requirement.

Thank you for your consideration. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional information and actual costs endured by Agency-Directed Service Providers to help paint a more accurate picture of the cost effect of the new mandates.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 
I work for a large company that has a paid time off policy for 64 hours a year. Please consider saying that sick leave has to be provided in addition to existing PTO leave and that existing paid time off will not cover sick days otherwise we lose all of our vacation leave to sick days.