Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act
A Democratic bill with 34 Democratic cosponsors · See all 34 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act. It changes the rules for family and medical leave so that employees can qualify after working for at least 90 days instead of meeting prior service hour requirements. The legislation prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on the number of hours they are scheduled to work. It also requires employers to offer available work hours to existing employees before hiring new workers or outside contractors. Furthermore, the bill establishes rules against retaliation and outlines penalties and enforcement mechanisms for violations.
Yes· 3 of 31
- Scored +7
Would women be better off under this?
Women disproportionately hold part-time jobs and benefit significantly from expanded family leave and non-discrimination rules.
- Scored +7
Would students be better off under this?
Students working part-time gain fair treatment in pay, benefits, and scheduling flexibility.
- Scored +6
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults frequently enter the workforce in part-time or temporary positions and benefit greatly from these protections.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Employers face new administrative costs, record-keeping mandates, and scheduling restrictions.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The record-keeping and scheduling mandates place additional administrative and compliance burdens on small businesses.
- Scored -1
Would farmers be better off under this?
Agricultural employers may experience increased administrative burdens from new labor rules.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 101: This section eliminates the old requirement that employees must work 1,250 hours over 12 months to qualify for family and medical leave. Instead, workers only need to be employed for at least 90 days. This makes family and medical leave much easier for part-time and newer workers to access.
-
Section 202: This provision stops employers from discriminating against workers just because they are scheduled to work fewer hours or for a shorter duration. It ensures equal treatment regarding pay, benefits, promotions, and work hours for jobs requiring similar skills.
-
Section 203: This section requires employers to ask new hires for their desired work hours and to offer those extra hours to current employees before bringing in outside help or temporary staff. This gives current part-time workers the first chance to pick up more hours and increase their earnings.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 203: Employers must track written statements of desired hours and offer extra work to current employees before hiring externally, which adds administrative burdens. If employers fail to follow these complex scheduling rules, they may face enforcement actions.
-
Section 205: This section establishes strict record-keeping requirements for employers, who must keep compliance records for at least three years. While this protects workers, it places a heavy paperwork burden on businesses, particularly small or medium-sized operations.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Students working part-time gain fair treatment in pay, benefits, and scheduling flexibility. Would women be better off under this? — Women disproportionately hold part-time jobs and benefit significantly from expanded family leave and non-discrimination rules. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The opportunity to secure additional work hours directly helps low-income individuals increase their earnings. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults frequently enter the workforce in part-time or temporary positions and benefit greatly from these protections. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants frequently work in part-time or temporary positions and benefit from equitable treatment mandates. Would men be better off under this? — Male part-time and temporary workers also gain expanded leave and fair treatment rights. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households with part-time workers gain better job security and leave entitlements. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Older workers who transition to part-time employment schedules receive equitable treatment and leave benefits. Would union members be better off under this? — Reinforces strong labor standards and equitable scheduling principles championed by labor organizations. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Provides equitable employment protections for minority workers often overrepresented in hourly roles. Would children be better off under this? — Expanded family leave allows parents more flexibility to care for their children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Supports equitable scheduling and leave access for Hispanic workers in hourly and part-time jobs. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged workers balancing family and career needs benefit from easier access to family leave. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Part-time workers with disabilities benefit from protections against discrimination based on hours worked. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees working part-time hours are protected against discrimination in pay and benefits. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban service and retail workers often work part-time and will see immediate benefits from the bill. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans transitioning into civilian part-time work receive stronger job protections. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Offers broad workplace protections applicable to workers across demographic backgrounds. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Protects vulnerable workers from workplace discrimination and retaliation. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Extends fair treatment and leave benefits to workers regardless of scheduled hours. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural part-time workers gain access to improved leave benefits and scheduling protections. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Extends equitable treatment and leave rights to all part-time and temporary workers. Would business owners be better off under this? — Employers face new administrative costs, record-keeping mandates, and scheduling restrictions. Would farmers be better off under this? — Agricultural employers may experience increased administrative burdens from new labor rules.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Women make up a significant portion of part-time workers and stand to benefit substantially from expanded leave and fair treatment rules. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By facilitating increased work hours for part-time employees, the bill helps boost earnings for lower-income households. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The protections benefit demographic groups disproportionately represented in part-time work.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — The legislation enhances workplace protections and rights for part-time and temporary workers. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill requires employers to offer available work hours to existing employees before hiring external workers, which encourages fuller employment for current staff. Is this likely to grow the economy? — By expanding family leave access and improving part-time worker utilization, the bill can improve overall workforce stability and productivity. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The record-keeping and scheduling mandates place additional administrative and compliance burdens on small businesses.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill includes clear enforcement mechanisms, remedies, and protections against workplace retaliation. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation expands federal regulatory oversight and enforcement authority over labor practices.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill expands access to family and medical leave by replacing hour requirements with a 90-day employment threshold.
- 6/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/17/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 31 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Alma AdamsDemocrat · North Carolina
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Nanette BarragánDemocrat · California
André CarsonDemocrat · Indiana
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Sheila Cherfilus-McCormickDemocrat · Florida
Greg CasarDemocrat · Texas
Rosa DeLauroDemocrat · Connecticut
Lloyd DoggettDemocrat · Texas
Christopher DeluzioDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Dwight EvansDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Jahana HayesDemocrat · Connecticut
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
James McGovernDemocrat · Massachusetts
Betty McCollumDemocrat · Minnesota
Seth MagazinerDemocrat · Rhode Island
LaMonica McIverDemocrat · New Jersey
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Chellie PingreeDemocrat · Maine
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina
Delia RamirezDemocrat · Illinois
Melanie StansburyDemocrat · New Mexico
Andrea SalinasDemocrat · Oregon
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan