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