WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1337

Relates to the processing of evidence related to sexual offenses and the inclusion of such results in the state DNA identification index

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Liz Krueger and 1 co-sponsor

Consolidates the definition of employee to Chapter 149, section 148B standard across chapters 151-152, reducing misclassification and clarifying payroll and benefit obligations.

REFERRED TO INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1337

Summary — S.1337 (2025): Consolidating the definition of “employee” to prevent misclassification

Note: The descriptive title in the submission packet (about sexual-offense evidence/DNA) does not match the bill text provided. This summary follows the actual bill text included in the packet, which is titled “An Act consolidating multiple definitions of employee to prevent misclassification.”

Main purpose

The bill seeks to eliminate inconsistent statutory definitions of “employee” across Massachusetts labor and compensation statutes by making the definition in G.L. c.149, §148B the controlling definition for related statutes (specifically chapters 151 and 152). The stated intent is to reduce worker misclassification and create a single, uniform statutory definition of “employee.”

Key provisions

  • Section 1: Amends G.L. c.149, §148B by replacing an existing cross-reference to “chapter 151” with a cross-reference to “chapters 151 and 152,” thereby ensuring that those chapters are tied to the definitions/standards in c.149, §148B.
  • Section 2: Amends §1 of G.L. c.152 by adding language to paragraph 4 that explicitly states: “Any reference to an employee shall have the same meaning as in section 148B of Chapter 149 of the General Laws.”
  • No fiscal figures, effective dates, or enforcement mechanisms beyond the statutory text changes are included in the bill text.

Who would be affected

  • Workers: Individuals whose employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) affects eligibility for wage protections, benefits, and compensation claims could gain clearer access to protections if the consolidated definition is broader than current disparate definitions.
  • Employers: Businesses across sectors may face changed obligations—payroll, withholding, benefits, workers’ compensation coverage, and potential liability—if more workers fall within the uniform “employee” definition.
  • State agencies/enforcers: Agencies that administer or enforce labor, wage, and compensation laws (e.g., state labor departments, workers’ compensation authorities, Attorney General’s office) would use a single statutory benchmark when assessing classification and enforcement matters.
  • Insurers and payroll processors: Could see administrative impacts from adjusted employer coverage and reporting.

Potential impact

  • Legal clarity: A single statutory definition should reduce inconsistent court and administrative interpretations and lower litigation over classification disputes.
  • Compliance shift: Depending on how §148B defines “employee,” some businesses may need to reclassify contractors as employees, with resulting payroll and benefit obligations.
  • Enforcement: May lead to increased audits, claims, and retroactive exposure for employers previously classifying workers as non-employees.

Procedural status and timeline (as provided)

  • Introduced in Senate: 2025-04-08
  • Read twice and referred to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 2025-04-08
  • Hearing scheduled: 05/13/2025, 11:00 AM–1:00 PM in B-1 (per docket)
  • Earlier docket entries indicate referrals to the Committee on Labor and Workforce Development and to an “Internet and Technology” committee; these entries appear inconsistent in the record provided.

Sponsors and related bills (as provided)

  • Sponsors listed in the submission include multiple named officials; the sponsorship listing appears inconsistent with a state statute filing (may reflect clerical error).
  • Related prior bills and legislative filings are identified (e.g., SD 1074 replaces; S 1455, S 6145, etc., from prior sessions).

If you want, I can:
- Compare the text of G.L. c.149, §148B and the current definitions in c.151 and c.152 to show precisely what classification changes would occur; or
- Draft a one-page explainer for employers on likely compliance actions if this bill becomes law.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.