Special Edition - 2025 Utah Legislative Session Update
The 2025 Utah Legislative Session is in full swing, with several employment-related bills that may impact the HR industry. We’ve summarized the bills that will have the most significant impact on the HR industry, including a bill that makes it easier for an employee to sue over a wage dispute. You can track all labor and employment related bills using the Legislature’s 2025 Labor and Employment Bill Tracker.
The Public Sector Labor Union Amendments (HB0267)—which bans public sector employers from recognizing a union as a bargaining unit and from entering into a collective bargaining agreement—already has passed both Chambers and is signed by Governor Cox. With that exception, all other employment-related legislation is pending.
We encourage our Utah-based readers to engage with their local representatives on these bills. If any of these bills speak to you, for good or ill, let your representative know! You can find contact information for your representatives using the Legislature’s District Map.
HB0186 –Wage Payment Amendments
This bill seems designed to make plaintiffs’ lawyers money. Ok, ok. That’s not the stated purpose. Still, we think this bill could lead to a substantial increase in wage-related litigation.
Under existing law, if an employee has a dispute about wages, they have an option to file a wage claim with the Labor Commission or file a lawsuit. However, before a lawsuit may be filed, an employee needs to try to work the dispute out with their employer by making a written demand (no such written demand is needed to file with the Labor Commission). If wages are not paid within 15 days of the written demand, a lawsuit may be filed. HB 186 removes the requirement to make a written demand for wages before filing a lawsuit. After all, why should employers and employees try to work out disputes on their own, when lawyers are standing by to do it for them!
Additionally, under existing law, final payment of wages to a terminated employee are due within 24 hours of termination. If final wages are not paid within 24 hours, an employee may make a written demand. A daily penalty of wages runs from the date of the demand until paid, with a cap of 60 days. HB 186 removes the requirement to make a written demand and makes the daily wage penalty run from the date of termination until paid (keeping in place the 60-day cap).
We believe this bill could result in a substantial increase in wage-related litigation. Imagine this hypothetical: an employer terminates an employee on a Friday afternoon, but they do not process the final check on Saturday and instead wait until Monday. That wage payment is two days late. Using this bill, this hypothetical employee could file a lawsuit to recover a two-day wage penalty, even though they’ve been paid all wages and even though they didn’t make a written demand to their employer. Now, who would file a lawsuit over a two-day wage penalty? Lawyers! And loads of them because the statute allows for the recovery of attorney fees.
On behalf of Utah SHRM and Salt Lake SHRM, we have contacted the sponsor of HB 186 to articulate our concerns. We learned through those efforts that two plaintiffs’ lawyers are behind the bill. We offered a compromise to extend the deadline for final payment of wages from “24 hours” to the next regularly scheduled payroll period (the approach taken in Idaho). In response, HB 186 was amended to convert the 24-hour deadline for final payment of wages to “one business day.” That modest change helps. A little.
However, given that the bill is designed by lawyers to make it easier for lawyers to sue, no one should be surprised when HB 186 results in a wave of wage-related litigation. If it passes, I may owe the sponsor a fruit basket to thank him for all the additional work.
HB 186 passed the House Business, Labor and Commerce Committee with a favorable recommendation and now faces a floor vote in the full House. If it passes there, it’ll head to the Senate.
HB0517 – Post-employment Restrictions Revisions
This bill amends the Post-employment Restrictions Act—the 2016 law invalidating non-compete agreements longer than one year in duration. The amendment would make a non-compete agreement with a mental health professional void—regardless of duration—if the employer has a waitlist for mental health services that is longer than two months when (a) the non-compete agreement was signed or (b) employment is terminated. The bill would apply to non-compete agreements entered into after May 7, 2025. This bill is pending in the House.
SB0086 – Workplace Protection Amendments
This bill amends the definition of “sexual harassment” in the Utah Antidiscrimination Act (UADA). The existing statute defines sexual harassment as “conduct that is a violation of” Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related state law. Under this bill, sexual harassment would be defined as “harassment on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender, as prohibited by” Title VII or related state law. However, because discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender already are prohibited by federal and state law, the purpose of this amendment is unclear.
Note: as originally proposed, this bill also would have expanded employer coverage under the UADA from 15 employees to 5. The House substituted that bill for one that does not include that jurisdictional change. However, the House apparently forgot to amend the summary statement of SB 86, which erroneously states that the bill amends this jurisdictional limit.
HB0467 – Dependent Worker Act
This bill seems designed to protect individuals who have been misclassified as independent contractors, to ensure that they are afforded rights as employees under various Utah employment statutes, including the Workers Compensation Act and Utah Antidiscrimination Act. The bill is likely not needed, as an employee wrongly classified as an independent contractor already has rights under existing law (subject to their ability to establish that their correct classification is as an employee). More troubling, the bill seems to grant employees wrongly classified as independent contractors even more rights than other correctly classified employees because it grants to them the ability to file a lawsuit under the Utah Workers Compensation Act and Utah Antidiscrimination Act—statutes that do not allow lawsuits. I’ve called this problem to the attention of the bill’s sponsor. You should too! This bill is pending in the House.
HB0214 - Employer Verification Amendments
This bill amends Utah’s Private Employer Verification Act, which requires employers who employ 150 or more employees to use the federal E-Verify program. The bill proposes expanding employer coverage to employers who employ at least five employees, i.e., to almost all employers. Strangely, the Private Employer Verification Act does not include penalties for employers who do not comply. HB 214 does not change that. However, HB 214 does add a criminal sanction for individuals who provide false information in connection with the verification process. The bill is pending with the House Business, Labor and Commerce Committee.
HB0019 – Child Labor Amendments
This bill adds clarity to existing criminal penalties that attach to child labor violations. The bill also empowers the Utah Labor Commission to report suspected criminal acts to the State Bureau of Investigation, and the State Bureau of Investigation to refer matters to law enforcement for prosecution. This bill passed the House, passed a Senate committee, and awaits a full vote in the Senate.
HB0050 – Occupational Safety and Health Amendments
This bill increases civil penalties for OSHA citations, e.g., the range for a fine for a willful violation will increase from $9,753 to $136,532 to $11,518 to $161,323. This bill passed the House, was amended and then passed the Senate, and now heads back to the House.
