Bill
A 7097
Defines who is an “employer” for wage payment, potentially making more entities liable for unpaid wages and related remedies.
Status & Procedural History
- Bill number: A7097 (Print Nos. A7097A / A7097B)
- Introduced: March 20, 2025
- Sponsors: Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn (primary); Karines Reyes (cosponsor)
- Committee referral: Referred to Labor (3/20/2025)
- Recent actions: Printed as A7097A (5/15/2025); amended and recommitted to Labor (5/15/2025); printed as A7097B (5/23/2025); amended (T) and recommitted to Labor (5/23/2025)
- Companion bill in the Senate: S6108
- Related prior-session Assembly bills: A6820, A802, A3284, A6829, A1924
Purpose and intent
- The bill proposes to change how the term “employer” is defined for purposes of state wage payment laws. Its intent is to clarify which entities are legally responsible for paying wages and complying with wage-and-hour requirements, and thereby improve enforcement and remedies for workers owed wages.
Key areas likely addressed (based on bill title and common legislative practice)
- Clarification of “employer” status: modifies statutory criteria used to determine whether an entity is an “employer” for wage-payment and wage‑collection purposes.
- Joint and single-employer liability: may specify when multiple entities (e.g., staffing agencies, franchises, contractors, subcontractors, parent companies, or staffing clients) are jointly or separately liable for unpaid wages, wage statements, and wage-related penalties.
- Control-based tests: could adopt objective factors (control over hiring, firing, payroll, work conditions, or hours) to determine employer status, reducing ambiguity in enforcement.
- Inclusion of business arrangements: may explicitly include or exclude certain business models (temporary staffing firms, professional employer organizations, staffing clients, franchisees/franchisors, independent contractors) from the statutory definition.
- Enforcement and remedies: likely affects who can be named in wage-claims, how civil penalties or liquidated damages are assessed, and which entities are subject to Department of Labor enforcement actions or private suits.
Who would be affected
- Workers: employees (including temporary, leased, or otherwise placed workers) stand to gain clearer paths to recover unpaid wages if more entities can be held liable.
- Employers and business entities: staffing agencies, franchisors/franchisees, contractors, subcontractors, parent/sister companies, and businesses using contract labor may face broader exposure to wage liabilities.
- Government enforcement: State labor agencies and courts may see changes in investigatory scope and ease of collecting wage judgments.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Increased employer liability: Clarifying joint employer status could expand the range of entities responsible for wage violations, potentially increasing employer compliance costs and litigation risk.
- Employer compliance changes: Businesses using contingent labor or multi-tiered contracting may need to review contracts, payroll practices, and oversight to limit liability.
- Enforcement effectiveness: A clearer statutory definition may streamline enforcement and reduce litigation over who is responsible for unpaid wages—but precise effects depend on the bill’s detailed language.
What to watch in the bill text
- Specific definition language and statutory sections amended
- Exact list of factors for establishing “employer” status
- Whether the law is retroactive or prospective
- Penalty and remedy provisions tied to expanded liability
- Any exemptions or carve-outs for certain business forms
Note: This summary is based on the bill title, sponsorship, and procedural history. The complete and authoritative effects depend on the full text of A7097A/B (printed versions) and any subsequent amendments. Review the bill text in the legislative record for precise legal language and operative provisions.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
