Quantcast

LOUISIANA RECORD

Thursday, May 2, 2024

New Louisiana law mandates companies to give workers time off for cancer screenings

Legislation
Jim patterson1 labi

Jim Patterson, LABI's interim president and CEO, said differences over the employee leave bill were resolved quickly. | Louisiana Association of Business and Industry

A new Louisiana law requiring employers to give workers unpaid time off for cancer screenings and genetic testing will take effect Aug. 1.

Senate Bill 200, authored by state Sen. Royce Duplessis (D-New Orleans), passed the Legislature with near-unanimous approval after supporters negotiated with business groups to make the bill less burdensome. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) opposed the original draft of the bill because it would have allowed workers to file civil lawsuits to be filed in district courts to obtain damages for violations of employee-leave bill.

The law will mandate employers to grant workers a daylong leave of absence to obtain the genetic testing or cancer screenings. In turn, the employee is required to provide the employer with 15 days notice prior to getting the leave of absence, according to an analysis of the bill by legislative staff.

“We were very much involved with that legislation throughout,” Jim Patterson, LABI’s interim president and CEO, told the Louisiana Record. “When the bill was filed, it was extremely burdensome and problematic.”

In the original provisions of the bill, employers accused of violating the measure would have been subject to civil litigation, according to Patterson.

Supporters of the bill had argued that because a bill granting this leave time wasn’t on the books, the result was to discourage workers from undertaking the testing over fears of being fired or other reasons.

“Ultimately, LABI removed its objection,” he said. “Other groups weren’t sure, but they agreed the bill was not problematic.”

The outcome of negotiations over SB 200 represents a compromise that should encourage workers to get the testing early in their treatment and perhaps save money in the long run, according to Patterson.

“It's not a major hardship,” he said. “But we certainly didn't want to create a situation where litigation, as the bill was originally filed, would issue from it, and employers would be considered to be violating law" in a punitive way.

More News