�鶹��ý

What Employers Can Learn From Axed Mo. Sick Leave Law

This article was originally published in on July 14, 2025, and is republished here with permission.

The ever-changing landscape of sick leave laws in the U.S. — both in number and scope — is a constant reminder to employers that they must remain vigilant, and constantly assess and update their benefits policies.

As of December, 18 states and Washington, D.C., had introduced statewide paid sick leave laws — a number that is expected to continue growing this year.[1]

Last year, voters in three states — Alaska, Missouri and Nebraska — added completely new statewide paid sick leave laws.[2]

Yet, for the first time since paid sick leave laws became the employee benefit du jour, we are witnessing a first-of-its-kind reaction: The state legislatures in Alaska, Missouri and Nebraska each made attempts to amend or repeal the laws less than a year after their passage.

Bills in both Alaska and Nebraska merely aim to amend the sick leave laws, narrowing them in scope, whereas a bill that was passed in Missouri this May, and  on July 10, will completely repeal the state’s paid sick leave law.

It remains clear that the national landscape is shifting in favor of paid sick leave laws across the U.S., but the practical fiscal responsibilities that such laws impose on employers, whether multinational corporations or mom-and-pop shops, can make it difficult to thread the needle to craft a sick leave policy that is appropriate for all employees and employers.

A look at the reasoning behind these changes can help employers understand what may be coming next, and what steps they can take to adapt now and in the future.

Missouri: A Case Study in a Changing Landscape

On Nov. 5, Missouri voters  Proposition A, which, among other things, created a new earned paid sick time benefit for Missouri employees that was set to begin May 1. The proposition was directly approved by voters and passed with a strong 58% of the vote.

The Missouri sick leave law is, on its face, fairly typical of such laws across the country. It requires that all employers with at least one employee provide sick leave that is accrued at one paid leave hour per every 30 hours worked.

Missouri employees can also accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick leave annually if their employer has less than 15 employees, or up to 56 hours of paid sick leave if they work for an employer that has 15 or more employees.

Under Proposition A, there is no waiting period to use accrued paid sick leave, meaning employees can use it as soon as they accrue it.

The law’s permitted reasons for using paid sick leave are also fairly typical for such a law in the U.S., including for the employee’s own illness, caring for a family member, or caring for a person for whom the employee is responsible for arranging health or safety care.

Despite the apparent commonality that the Missouri paid sick leave law shares with many such laws across the country, it faced an immediate challenge. By early January, H.B. 567 was announced to amend Proposition A.

Initially, H.B. 567 proposed only to delay the implementation of Proposition A to give employers in Missouri more time to prepare, but by the time the bill left committee in mid-March, the proposal was to repeal the paid sick leave law in its entirety.

During this intervening period, several public hearings were held, at which members of the community and various industry groups raised several issues for or against the law.

Arguments From Proponents of Repeal

In particular, proponents of repeal put forth several arguments, including the following.

Insufficient Time to Prepare

Proponents of repeal argued that there were less than six months between the passage of Proposition A in November and its implementation date of May 1.

Those in support of its repeal had concerns that the quick turnaround did not allow businesses sufficient time to set up and implement a policy, especially in light of the potential for increased costs, which they may not have budgeted for that fiscal year.

Increased Costs to Small and Seasonal Businesses

One of the biggest concerns that opponents of the sick leave law raised was the fiscal impact on small and seasonal businesses. Employers voiced concerns that the sick leave requirements would raise the cost of doing business.

Those in favor of repeal cited a June letter to the Missouri secretary of state, in which the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry described the results from its 2025 annual statewide survey of CEOs and business leaders, indicating that about one-third of employers stated that the original Proposition A would discourage them from hiring new employees.[3]

There were also concerns about the broader impacts of underemployment if employers were to hire fewer employees in response to the paid sick leave requirements — sentiments that echoed across the U.S. in early 2025 due to the uncertain economic situation resulting from changes in national trade policies.

Potential for Abuse

Proponents of repeal also voiced concerns that Proposition A only required employees who take paid sick leave to provide evidence to their employer when the leave is three or more consecutive days.

The concern voiced was of potential abuse if employees were not required to provide evidence of being sick or caring for another person from the start of the leave period.

Administrative Burdens

Some proponents of repeal were opposed to the sick leave law because of the administrative burden of tracking and complying with providing sick leave.

Arguments From Opponents of Repeal

Conversely, members of the public who were in favor of the paid sick leave law argued against repeal on the following grounds.

Disproportionate Impact on Low-Wage Workers

Those who are in favor of keeping Proposition A, and who oppose H.B. 567, noted that repealing the paid sick leave benefit disproportionately affects low-wage workers, as they are less likely to be able to absorb the financial harm of a lost day’s pay due to their own illness or a loved one’s.

Paid Sick Leave as a Public Health and Worker Protection Issue

Opponents of H.B. 567 argued that paid sick leave helps keep employees safe and healthy, as well as the general public. They argued that workers who have access to paid sick leave are more likely to stay out of work when they are sick, and are therefore less likely to spread illness to other employees.

Directly Contravenes the Will of Voters

Proponents of Proposition A further commented that the proposition passed with a strong majority of voters, and thus they voiced concerns that repealing the paid sick leave benefit was in direct opposition to the will of the people of Missouri who had made their stance known by vote only a few months prior.

The Fate of Proposition A

At the conclusion of public comments and hearings, and after another round of legislative procedures, H.B. 567 passed the Missouri Senate on May 14 by a two-thirds majority, only 13 days after it officially went into effect.

On July 10, Gov. Mike Kehoe signed H.B. 567 into law, effectively canceling the Missouri paid sick leave law beginning on Aug. 28. However, Missouri employers must still track and provide paid sick leave from May 1 through Aug. 28.

The whipsaw approach to the Missouri paid sick leave law over the last nine months begs an interesting question: Will it lead to a cascading effect in other state legislatures across the country?

Specifically, the concerns raised in public hearings — such as employers being unwilling to hire new workers due to the costs associated with providing paid sick leave versus the impact on low-wage workers — are not unique to Missouri. Similar arguments are often heard across the country.

Will what happened in Missouri lead to the amendment or repeal of any current paid sick leave laws, or perhaps give legislatures in the remaining states that have yet to enact such laws any moments of pause before taking action?

If nothing else, the passage and repeal of the Missouri paid sick leave law certainly demonstrates why employers need to be vigilant in periodically assessing the status of such laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

Best Practices for Employers

Employers across the U.S., whether they have operations in a single state with no paid sick leave requirements, or in multiple states with a variety of paid sick leave obligations, should periodically assess their current policies, as well as new or changed legal requirements.

Given the pace of such changes over the last several years, we recommend reviewing the status of paid sick leave laws in the states in which employers operate at least every six to 12 months.

For employers that operate in multiple states with varying paid sick leave obligations, a difficult question is how to structure and maintain their policies to comply with the variety and ever-changing requirements of such laws.

There are two predominant approaches to this situation, as described below, both with their own benefits and challenges.

A Singular, Overarching Policy

For some employers, it may make sense to have one broad policy that tracks the most generous paid sick leave obligation applicable across their organization’s footprint.

Such a policy would have the benefit of the ease of administration, with those in charge of implementation only having to understand and interpret one policy.

The need for policy changes also decreases, as only the changes in law that provide a more generous benefit than the current policy would require a change to the policy.

This approach also tends to carry a higher perceived fairness, as all employees would have the same benefit regardless of where they work.

On the other hand, having a single policy that is applicable to all employees in the organization usually carries an increase in the cost of providing a benefit that is greater than legally necessary, including potentially providing paid sick leave in states with no applicable law on the subject.

Multiple State-Specific Policies

The other primary approach is to create separate policies that are applicable to the employees in each state or municipality that has its own paid sick leave law across the organization’s operational footprint.

This approach would reduce benefits costs on the whole, because the employer would not incur the cost of providing paid sick leave in states that do not have a law requiring it, nor would it provide more or greater leave benefits than the local law allows. This approach effectively meets — but does not unnecessarily exceed — legal standards.

The downside of such an approach is that the administrative burden of implementing and tracking a variety of policies across the organization will proportionately increase in exchange.

Additionally, having multiple policies with different benefit terms could lead to confusion or frustration for employees in states that have lesser or no paid sick leave benefits.

One recommendation for employers that go this route is to put paid sick leave policies for specific states in separate addendums to a handbook that are only issued to employees of that particular state in order to minimize confusion or perceptions of unfairness.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the task of complying with paid sick leave laws across the U.S. is an arduous one that grows in complexity each year.

Only time will tell whether the drama that unfolded in Missouri throughout the first half of 2025 is a harbinger of the future or an interesting footnote in the slow march toward paid sick leave across the country.

Regardless, employers must keep abreast of the ever-changing landscape and ensure that they have a plan in place to comply with today’s requirements, as well as to adapt to the unknown requirements of tomorrow.

�鶹��ý summer associate Laurel Cinti contributed to this article.

[1] .

[2] These included Alaska’s Ballot Measure 1 (2024), codified at Alaska Stat. § 23.10.066-69 (effective July 1, 2025); Missouri’s Proposition A, codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.600-642 (effective May 1, 2025); and Nebraska’s Nebraska Healthy Families and Workplaces Act, passed via Initiative Measure 463 and to be codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-3801 (effective October 1, 2025).

[3] , .