Is paid family medical leave coming to Nevada?

Jessica Hill, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Apr 2, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

After Andrea Martinez gave birth to her daughter, she could take only four weeks of leave — two weeks paid, two weeks unpaid. As a single mother with one income, she returned to work quickly to support her three children and sent her newborn to a daycare.

“This situation created a significant hardship for me, especially since I had a C-section and needed time to heal,” she said. “I wouldn’t wish this burden on anyone, especially mothers who face the difficult decision to provide for their families.

A bill on the table would give Nevadans like Martinez 12 weeks of paid family medical leave. If passed, Nevada would join 13 states with similar laws.

Assembly Bill 388, sponsored by Assemblymember Selena La Rue Hatch, would require companies and government agencies with at least 50 employees to provide paid leave for a variety of life events, from giving birth to taking care of a family member with a critical illness.

“I don’t think that Nevada families should have to choose between their paycheck and their health, or between their families and having a roof over their heads,” La Rue Hatch, D-Reno, said.

Only 4% of Nevada businesses have 50 or more employees, but the bill would provide paid family leave for about a million Nevadans, she said.

Under current law, employees in Nevada’s Executive Department of the state government are entitled to eight weeks of paid family leave over a 12-month period. That includes the offices of the governor, secretary of state, attorney general and other state agencies.

Paid family leave would apply to birth, fostering or adoption of a child, military service, receiving treatment for or recovering from a serious illness, taking care of a family member with a critical illness and for recovery from domestic violence or sexual assault, according to La Rue Hatch.

La Rue Hatch said paid family medical leave is different from sick time or paid time because it is for specific life conditions that need to be handled more long-term.

Employees who make less than $1,200 a week, or $57,000 a year, would get 100 percent of their pay. If they make more than that, they will receive 60 percent. Pay would be capped at 150 percent of the state average weekly wage, which is about $78,000 a year.

The bill requires an employee to provide notice to their employer and make a “reasonable effort” to take paid family leave in a way that limits disruption of the company’s operations, La Rue Hatch said. If an employee takes leave they’re not entitled to, the Division of Human Resource Management of the Department of Administration can investigate.

The Office of the Labor Commissioner would be responsible for enforcing the law, a violation of which would result in a misdemeanor and penalty of up to $5,000, according to the bill text. The office estimated that it would cost nearly $523,000 to enforce the bill if passed.

Unlike some states with a state-run program in which an employer pays into a fund for paid family medical leave, AB 388 would require employers to manage the paid leave. La Rue Hatch said employers could purchase insurance for paid family medical leave that their employees can access.

The bill received wide support from Nevada workers who shared their own stories of having to stop working to care for a family member, but it was heavily opposed by the state’s business community.

Representatives for businesses pointed to economic uncertainty and expected increased costs due to tariffs, saying now is not the time for such a proposal. Chambers of commerce representatives said it will be costly to employers and reduce competitiveness in Nevada.

“While we understand and empathize with employees who need time off to care for their families, we oppose AB 388 because it would impose significant financial and operational burdens on Nevada businesses at a time when many are grappling with rising costs, increasing tariffs and economic uncertainty,” said Ann Silver, CEO of the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce.

________