Washington Democrats want businesses to pay for immigration proceedings
Because forcing private employers to cover personal legal matters is apparently “equity.”
Washington Democrats, led by Rep. Osman Salahuddin (D-Redmond), are pushing Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1875 (ESHB 1875), a bill that forces businesses to let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings—including deportation hearings.
Supporters claim this bill promotes equity and fairness, but in reality, it expands government mandates on private employers, creates an uneven playing field for different legal matters, and forces businesses to cover personal legal issues unrelated to health.
If ESHB 1875 becomes law, expect:
Employers to be required to give paid leave for immigration cases while other legal matters—like child custody or divorce hearings—aren’t covered.
Businesses to face new compliance burdens tracking yet another government-mandated benefit.
A potential flood of paid sick leave claims for immigration cases, increasing costs for employers.
This isn’t about fairness—it’s about forcing businesses to absorb the consequences of federal immigration enforcement.
What ESHB 1875 does
ESHB 1875 modifies Washington’s paid sick leave laws by adding immigration proceedings—including deportation hearings—to the list of acceptable uses.
Workers would be allowed to use their accrued sick leave to attend immigration-related court hearings or those of a family member.
Employers would be required to accept documentation from attorneys, advocates, or clergy members as proof of proceedings.
The law would apply across all industries, increasing regulatory burdens on private businesses.
Democrats claim this is about protecting immigrants from financial hardship, but in practice, it forces private employers to subsidize legal processes that have nothing to do with workplace health or safety.
Why this bill is unfair
It forces businesses to fund personal legal matters
Paid sick leave is meant for illness, medical care, and recovery. Under ESHB 1875, it would now be mandatory for businesses to cover time off for immigration hearings.
Why should immigration cases qualify, but not other legal matters like child custody, divorce, or civil lawsuits?
This bill unfairly prioritizes one group’s legal needs over another’s.
It expands government control over private employment benefits, dictating how businesses must allocate resources.
Washington businesses are already struggling under one of the most burdensome regulatory environments in the country. Now, lawmakers want to force them to subsidize immigration court hearings as well.
It opens the door for abuse
Under current law, paid sick leave requires a doctor’s note or similar medical documentation. But under ESHB 1875:
Employers must accept documentation from attorneys, advocates, or clergy members.
Unlike medical leave, which has objective standards, immigration hearings can be subjective and drawn out.
Businesses will have no way of verifying whether an employee is truly required to attend a proceeding.
This creates an incentive for fraudulent claims while tying employers’ hands in enforcing legitimate leave policies.
It prioritizes immigration cases over other legal proceedings
Republicans in the House proposed an amendment to limit sick leave use to qualifying legal proceedings like asylum, refugee, visa, and naturalization cases—but Democrats rejected it because it didn’t include deportation hearings.
Workers can use sick leave to fight deportation, but not for a child custody battle.
They can get paid time off for an asylum claim, but not for an adoption hearing.
Divorce, family court, and other major life events are excluded—but immigration court is covered.
Even Rep. Deb Manjarrez (R-Grandview) questioned why immigration cases should get special treatment while other court cases aren’t covered under sick leave policies.
This bill isn’t about fairness—it’s about picking winners and losers.
Who benefits from this bill?
Immigrant advocacy groups, who get state-sanctioned protections for their constituents.
Labor unions, who gain another government-mandated benefit for workers.
Politicians pushing open-border policies under the guise of “equity.”
Who doesn’t benefit?
Small businesses, which will face higher compliance costs and a new type of leave to manage.
Employees who need time off for other legal matters but aren’t covered.
Consumers, who will see higher prices as businesses adjust to yet another government mandate.
This bill isn’t about “equity”—it’s about forcing private employers to absorb the costs of immigration enforcement.
What’s next?
The Washington House passed ESHB 1875 by a 58-39 vote, with all Republicans opposing it. The bill now heads to the Senate for further consideration.
If passed, expect:
More financial strain on businesses forced to comply with another government mandate.
A push to expand paid leave for other legal proceedings, opening the door to more regulation.
A precedent that prioritizes immigration cases over other important legal matters.
Washington lawmakers should be focusing on economic relief and business-friendly policies—not forcing companies to cover legal proceedings unrelated to employment.