HB 25-05: Employer COVID-19 Liability Limitation Act (Debating)

[Mike Thick]

I don't see any reason why this is necessary. This bill actually seems fairly cruel. At risk persons should not be forced to come back to work and then have protections removed.

Yeah, I'm not a fan either. Based on my research, it seems like this would insulate businesses from lawsuits based on established principles that can prove negligence, like industry standards/customs or common sense. Not everything that applies here is codified in a specific statute. Moreover, I don't see why COVID should be treated differently than any other ongoing health hazard -- if anything, it seems like liability is a needed incentive for employers to take workplace precautions seriously.

There's also no reason to believe that employers are going to face lots of frivolous lawsuits because of the pandemic.

[Mike Thick]

Yeah, I'm not a fan either. Based on my research, it seems like this would insulate businesses from lawsuits based on established principles that can prove negligence, like industry standards/customs or common sense. Not everything that applies here is codified in a specific statute. Moreover, I don't see why COVID should be treated differently than any other ongoing health hazard -- if anything, it seems like liability is a needed incentive for employers to take workplace precautions seriously.

There's also no reason to believe that employers are going to face lots of frivolous lawsuits because of the pandemic.

The second subsection quite literally provides room for employees to pursue legal action if the employer violates the standard of reasonable care: specifically whether or not the business complies with state, regional, or federal COVID prevention regulations already in place.

I’m also not sure that this bill treats COVID-19 all that differently from other workplace hazards, since – similarly to past precedent in other cases related to workplace hazards – lawsuits aimed at businesses who violated that standard already pose a giant threat to employers who don’t feel sufficiently incentivized to comply with health and safety regulations.

My issue with that subsection is the definition of "State, Regional, or Federal Law." If that doesn't cover precedent from civil cases, the bill rules out a lot of avenues for employees to be made whole when businesses don't meet the standard. If it does cover things that aren't included in statute, then I'm not sure why the bill is necessary in the first place -- it's just saying "businesses can't be found liable for this in court unless they cause injury by violating the standard of care," which is how things are right now anyway.

[Mike Thick]

Not me. Still oppose the bill, but good to move to a vote if everyone else is.

[Mike Thick]

I move for a final vote on this legislation. 24 hours to object.

[Mike Thick]

Good catch. The amendment, being friendly to the sponsor, is adopted.

[Mike Thick]

I move for a final vote on this legislation. 24 hours to object.

No further objections.

Great! We’re just waiting on Muad’dib to withdraw his objection — after that we can go to a vote.

[Mike Thick]

Ah, alright. A final vote on the passage of this bill is open. Representatives have no more than 72 hours to vote, or 24 hours from when passage or failure attains majority support.

Nay.

[Mike Thick]

Voting on this bill has now closed.

Ayes:
Joseph Cao
Muad'dib

Nays:
gracile
Razze
Ted Bessell

Not Voting:
Elcaspar
HCP
SevenEleven
Winfield

By a vote of 2-3, this bill does not pass.