S.B. 213 Utah Payment of Wages Act Statute of Limitations

What this bill does

The bill sets the deadline for filing unpaid wage claims under the state's wage payment law at one year for administrative claims and two years for civil claims. Under the latest agreement described, these time limits would take effect May 6, 2026.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 7 yes, 0 no, 1 absentSenate Business and Labor Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 3, 2026Who voted how
• 22 yes, 0 no, 7 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 20, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 1 no, 3 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 23, 2026Who voted how
• 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 8 yes, 1 no, 2 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 68 yes, 1 no, 6 absentFinal House vote · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how
• 65 yes, 1 no, 9 absentConference Committee - Final Passage · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 3, 2026 Senate Business and Labor Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (32 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:14:32

     Senate number 11 on the agenda. Senate bill two 13, Utah Payment of wages Acts, statute of limitations. Senator Stratton.

  2. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:14:39

     Thank you Chair. I, uh, this is a really short change in, in our code, just line 26 deals with a, uh, I think the general description talks about a modification, but it's more of a clarification as we deal in the employment law and the intended legislature previously, uh, would like my to introduce the one here with me to give the context of this bill and, uh, then will swing back to me. Thank you. If that's okay. Thank

  3. Committee chair1:15:16

     You. Senator Stratton.

  4. Mark Tolman, Salt Lake SHRM / Utah SHRM Council1:15:17

     Uh, mark Tolman. I am, uh, co-chair of the Labor and Employment Department at Parsons Bailey and Latimer. I'm, I also volunteer as, uh, the Director of Legal Affairs for the Salt Lake chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management or Salt Lake SH rm. And in the same volunteer capacity for the Utah SHRM Council, representing those, uh, entities today. So if an employee believes that they are owed wages, they have two ways to bring that claim. They can bring an administrative claim filed with the Utah Labor Commission. These are smaller dollar claims, less than $10,000, or they can file a lawsuit. These would be individual claims greater than $10,000 or a group of employees, a class or collective group. Having a, a collective claim greater than $10,000. Section nine of the Utah Payment of Wages Act makes clear that the statute of limitations is one year for a wage claim, and everyone understands that that applies to those administrative claims. Section 9.5 lays out the process and procedure for a lawsuit for unpaid wages. 9.5 is silent with respect to the statute of limitations. That ambiguity has led to conflict in the courts. We have a decision from five years ago from a federal judge that said, well, I, I don't see a statute of limitations in 9.5, so I'm going to apply three years more recently, just last year, a a trial judge in third district court. Judge Shaughnessy said, that's not right. Um, the legislature in Section nine said, a wage claim needs to be filed within one year and applied a one year claim. That, uh, judge Shaughnessy decision, though that case, uh, settled. Uh, so we're not going to have an appellate ruling. So there is some ambiguity here. Um, and if it's not resolved, uh, uh, by the legislature, at some point an appellate court will tell us who's right there. Um, but, uh, so we're asking this court to make clear, um, that the statute of limitations for a lawsuit is the same for an administrative claim one year. We know that there are plaintiff's employment lawyers, particularly class action lawyers who'd love to see a longer claim for their lawsuits. But I'll tell you, in my experience and I double check today, I'm not aware of any statute of limitations, any place that varies based on the size of the claim or the forum where it's filed. So we would ask you simply just make clear that if you wanna file a lawsuit under the Utah Payment of Wages Act, uh, for unpaid wages, you got a year to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I'll leave my presentation at that.

  5. Committee chair1:17:44

     Okay. Thank you. Come back to the committee for clarifying questions. Senator Weiler?

  6. Sen. Todd Weiler1:17:49

     Yeah, thank you. Um, not as much of a question as more of a comment. I'll be supporting the bill. Um, so Utah has a, um, residual statute of limitations. So if, if the legislature doesn't say what the statute of limitations is, it's, it, it defaults to four years, which I believe is too long for a wage claim. Not only for the reasons stated, but, um, we have another statute that says if you make a written demand from an employer upon termination, you can actually get interest in penalties accruing on a daily basis if they don't pay you that last paycheck in full within a few days. And I actually had a family member recently do this, and now they're before the Labor Commission. But, you know, people know if they weren't paid, it doesn't take 'em four years to discover that their last paycheck or that they, that they were being underpaid. So I do think a four year, um, uh, is unnecessary. And, and just by way of reference, there's a ton of stuff that we have a one year session limitations for, like libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction, or I think this one's interesting, uh, against a sheriff for the escape of a prisoner arrested or, or against a city for a mob or a riot. So, you know, you know, you gotta get your ducks in order in one year. I think that's, uh, I think that intent is clear with the administrative code. So those are the reasons I'll be voting. Aye,

  7. Committee chair1:19:04

     Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, we'll go to the public. Anyone in the public that like testify on this bill. See a couple of hands, please come forward.

  8. David Head, Attorney, Head Law1:19:28

     Good afternoon, uh, chair. Um, my name is David Head. I'm an attorney and I do work for employees. Um, I'm also a member of Utah Association for Justice and Utah Employees Lawyers Association. Um, I am concerned about the change to one year. While I would agree with, uh, Senator Weiler, a four year may not be necessary. Um, when you have these bigger claims, uh, 10,000 or above where it needs to be brought in a district court, the district court system's very complicated and it can be very difficult to find an attorney, get everything in place and file within one year. While there are some exceptions where there's the, the statute limitations less than a year, you know, a breach of contract claim on a, on a written contract six years, like as Senator Weiler pointed, it's four years. And there are some exceptions like defamation, but I think there's some good public policy where we don't want a bunch of crazy defamation claims and it should be filed within one year. But you have to understand the context here. What typically happens, and I get calls on these regularly, I got a call actually on a, um, potential client situation yesterday. What typically happens, you have employees, they're working for an employer, the employer's having financial issues, and instead of going to the employee saying, I'm sorry, I can't keep you on payroll, they keep leading them on for a very long period of time. And then eventually when the employee leaves, they're, they're left with a huge bill that they're owed for all the work they did over a long period of time, and they want to get paid. And, you know, the purpose of a statute of limitations, is it supposed to get rid of still old claims? And I don't, I think only the, the change to one year, I think it really only helps employers, and I think it's just a little harsh when you have employees that haven't been paid a large sum of money. Like the, the gentleman that called me yesterday, he was owed $30,000 refurbished cars. And a lot of times what happens when it's paid over a long period of time, you can have situations where the employee's still not getting paid past a year. And then if they finally get an attorney, they may not be able to include all of their wages. I just think one year is a little too harsh. I think I would, I think having some clarification helps, but one year just doesn't justify the circumstances when its employees not being able to get an attorney and time be able to get owed, get the money back for the wages they're owed. I think a wanna benefit too, having a longer period of time than a year is when you're an attorney and if a client hires you, and if it's just a one year, you have to rush to file a lawsuit. And there's real benefit from pre-litigation, uh, settlement negotiations. And I think frankly, as, as the committee knows, there's been, there's been a big press on resources and I think frankly, it'll, it will hurt employees that can't find an attorney in time, no matter their circumstances, and those who can, it's gonna be, they have to rush more to file a lawsuit. So I didn't, I don't think one year is just the right fit, the right amount for this, um, the situation. I should, I think it should be longer. So that's the committee either deny the bill or to hold it so there can be further discussions with interests, um, parties in this situation. So it's the right amount and not, but one year is just too short. Thank you.

  9. Committee chair1:22:36

     Thanks. Uh, a question for you. Um, do you have any precedents, uh, for something different? You know, Senator Weiler talked about the default of four years and then gave a list of, uh, some other issues that are, have a precedent for one year. Do you, are you familiar with any that have a, would give a precedent for something in between?

  10. David Head, Attorney, Head Law1:22:56

      Um, there, there's different types of claims of different amounts of statute of limitations as was mentioned that the, the, it was an understanding for yes

  11. Committee chair1:23:03

      Or no would help. And maybe a

  12. David Head, Attorney, Head Law1:23:04

      Yes, I am, I do know others. I apologize. The chair, um, you know, three years is for a fraud claim. Okay. Um, two years is for a medical malpractice claim. The default is four, but one I think is very, is too short for the circumstances. Okay.

  13. Committee chair1:23:18

      Thank you. Uh, I thought I saw one other hand in the room. Yeah, please come forward. Forward And we do have one online, so we'll have one more in the room and then one online. And thanks for coming in.

  14. Kent Strealing, America First Credit Union / Utah SHRM1:23:34

      My name's Kanosh Ling and I'm the Senior Vice President Human Resources at America First Credit Union. I've been an HR professional for 35 years. I also sit here today representing my HR colleagues from Utah's five chapters of the Society for Human Resource Management, of which I have served as a past state director. I speak today in favor of this amendment, um, and my experience over the past few years, and in my role at America First Credit Union, we have witnessed an increase in class action wage lawsuits filed or threatened from out-of-state lawyers. They're using the ambiguity in the Utah Payment of Wages Act to gain a strategic advantage by pairing a federal claim with the lack of clarity in the act. This clarifying amendment simply tells the parties where they stand. Thank you.

  15. Committee chair1:24:25

      Thank you. We do have one on line. Uh, Brian Bernard, if you can turn your camera on, uh, tell us your name, uh, who you represent, and where you live. Is it getting there? Okay,

  16. Bryan Bernard, Attorney, Holland and Hart1:24:58

      Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Brian Bernard. I am an employment attorney at Holland and Hart. I am, I live in South Ogden. I work in Salt Lake. I actually am not representing anyone but, uh, myself and my colleagues from sort of the employer side of the bar here in, in Utah, uh, until a couple years ago when a private right of action was created, uh, by compromise and, and a name. Many of you have heard Lawrence Skolnik, who is an employment side or employee side lawyer, and this section 9.5 was created because these larger claims were unwieldy for the Labor Commission. However, there was no discussion about extending the statute of limitations from one year. It's been understood for decades in Utah that, that you file a wage claim, you file it quickly, you get to the case. And, and contrary to, you know, the, the prior suggestion, employees will get wages faster if they file their claims faster. So, uh, there's no need to extend the understood, uh, one year sort of statute of limitations here. I think it's a clarification that is important because there have been a lot of out of state class action lawyers on the wage and hour front come into Utah and try to to railroad longer claims. And there are a lot of good policy reasons for having it short. For, for example, if you have a discrimination claim, you only have 180 days to file at the State of Utah or 300 days at the EOC, that's much shorter than a one year statute. The other thing is when you look at the Utah Payment of Wages Act as a, as a whole, it requires employers to pay final wages within 24 hours of a separation of employment or if it's a resignation by the next payday. So at the time of termination, employees have their pay and their pay stub. They have everything they need at that moment to file a claim. And what happens is when it goes for six months, a year, two years, heaven forbid, people have turned over. There are no witnesses left. No one can recall what the pay processes actually were. And so the policy is strong to have it be a, a one year statute of limitations in the employment context and in practice, I don't see any reason why, you know, when there was a good compromise. And I think I helped draft this section of the compromise to let these larger claims go out to court instead of the Labor Commission. But there was never a discussion or an agreement to extend the statute of limitations because policy.

  17. Committee chair1:27:46

      Brian, maybe if I can interject, just to clarify. Sure. Um, the discussion in, in the room has been that the default is currently four years. The bill would move it to one year.

  18. Bryan Bernard, Attorney, Holland and Hart1:27:58

      I think I would say Section nine creates a one year requirement to file

  19. Committee chair1:28:04

      Aion and this bill commission and this bill it does, but it, yeah, previous to that it was the default was four years.

  20. Bryan Bernard, Attorney, Holland and Hart1:28:10

      I, I, I, I respectfully disagree with

  21. Committee chair1:28:14

      That. Well then, uh, section nine then, if, if it had already had one year, then the bill doesn't change anything.

  22. Bryan Bernard, Attorney, Holland and Hart1:28:19

      It, it clarifies because this is a new section 9.5 is a new section to the Utah Payment of Wages Act that came online, I think two to three years ago. Okay.

  23. Committee chair1:28:28

      So prior, let just ask you, are four or against the bill to, are you for against the bill track?

  24. Bryan Bernard, Attorney, Holland and Hart1:28:33

      I'm absolutely for it. Okay, Thank You. It clarifies that it is one year and should be one year.

  25. Committee chair1:28:38

      Okay. Tha thanks, I appreciate that. Yep. Okay. We'll come back, uh, into the room for, and come back to the committee for further clarifying questions or actions. Senator Cullimore?

  26. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:28:50

      Yeah. Yeah. More of a question, I guess. Um, certainly it seems like there's need for clarification here, so I can, I'm supportive of that. I'm a little bit sympathetic to the idea that somebody could be strung along for six or seven months and I, I can see that with a small business or a small employer and saying, hey, and then, um, terminating them. And then let's say it takes 'em seven, eight months to start the claim. I wonder if the, I, it seems like if, if we want to keep the, the intent of, or the spirit of the one year statute of limitations, I, I wonder if there's a way that we could draft it to where it's like at the, at the point of termination, you have one year and you can still collect everything from that prior employer. Is that, or is that problematic

  27. Mark Tolman, Salt Lake SHRM / Utah SHRM Council1:29:32

      That, that's problematic for a lengthy period of employment? Right. Um, and just to be clear how we drafted this. So section nine one e of the existing law, it's been in place for years and years and years. Lemme read it. It says A wage claim shall be filed within one year after the day on which the wages were earned. How we drafted this bill is we copied that language and we pasted it in 9.5. Just to be clear that it was always the intention of legislature for that statute of limitations to flow through the act and not be limited in some way just to administrative claims. And so, to your question directly though, I, I think that is a problem. Somebody works for an employer for 30 years, right? Uh, it effectively creates a 30 year statute of limitations for them. And, uh, instead, right now you've, the way the statute's written, you've incentivized folks to say, look, if there's a dispute, you get a year to figure it out. It, it, it runs from the date the wages were earned and should have been paid. That's always how it's been.

  28. Committee chair1:30:37

      Thank you. Any further? Um, clarification or action? Anyone wanna make a motion? Senator Colmore?

  29. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:30:57

      Yeah, I'll, I'll make the motion. Um, I appreciate that explanation and, and, and, uh, yeah, I understand that. So there may be, I dunno, maybe, maybe some further discussion, discussion might be warranted. But, but I think this is important to clarify because we've got a discrepancy in the admin code and, and, and laws. So, um, I'll make the recommendation and, and I'll stew on this some, but make the recommendation that we favorably recommend SB two 13.

  30. Committee chair1:31:26

      Okay. The motion for is to favorably recommend Senate Bill two 13. Any discussion to that motion? Seeing none. Senator Stratton, thank

  31. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:31:34

      You for the motion and appreciate the, the, the consideration. I think what, what we have here is you, we, we've had an opportunity to hear, hear the different perspectives. We have an ambiguity that was created and, uh, much, much ForSight, but to be consistent, not only with, uh, the, uh, intent longstanding, but also with the recent Utah court ruling. And this might be one case we'll agree with the, the Utah courts, that, that it ought to be one year. And I think that there's, there's some, there's some clarity here that's really important for our economy and our, both of our employees and our employers in moving forward. So I appreciate the support of the bill, but certainly open to continued discussion through if there's a better way

  32. Committee chair1:32:18

      To do it. Senator Cullimore, any further? I a Okay. We'll place the motion. All in favor of February recommended Senate Bill two 13. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. Rule that passage unanimous. Think we, we still seven to zero. Thank you. Thank you.

• Feb 20, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Senate presiding officer (President)47:17

     Senator Stratton.

  2. Sen. Keven J. Stratton47:19

     Thank you Mr. President. What we're doing here, very slight modification in, in this piece of, uh, legislation. It's, it's a clarification and aligning the statute of limitations in, in wages, uh, uh, when aligning in other places in the cold that we have one year from the time the wage is due to make the claim or the statute of limitations are, uh, does terminates several cases, several circumstances in our code. We do this, uh, based upon the circumstance situations that helps provide equity and stability in the marketplace. With that, I'll be glad that yield any questions?

  3. Senate presiding officer (President)48:03

     Thank you Senator Stratton for the presentation. Looking for discussion? I'm not seeing discussion on your bill. I'm gonna go to you for action. I'll waive summation and, and move that uh, SB two 13. Be read for the third time.

  4. Senate presiding officer (President)48:19

     Thank you. And the question is, shall Senate bill two 13 be read a third time? Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin b Brammer Bus Aye. Colmore Escamia Fillmore Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Mussman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye. Senate Bill two 13 Having received 22 yay votes. Zero and a votes seven being absent shall be read A third time.

  5. Senate presiding officer (President)49:28

     Senate bill two 15 Senate bill two 15 Eviction record amendments. Senator Pitcher. Senator Pitcher.

  6. Sen. Jen Plumb49:36speaker not certain

     Thank you Mr. President. This bill modifies the time, uh, where an individual is eligible to expunge a dismissed eviction from three years to one year. This is a consensus bill between the stakeholders. Happy to answer any questions.

  7. Senate presiding officer (President)49:49speaker not certain

     Thank you for Senator Pitcher for the explanation.

• Feb 23, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Sen. Keven J. Stratton37:05

     Thank you Mr. President pro tem. Straightforward, uh, simple. Bill, really what we're doing is aligning the statute of limitations in this space. Uh, as as stated in other areas of, of the rule and code. The notion is you have one year from the day on which the wages are earned to, uh, protest or uh, the statute of limitations closes. With that, I'll be glad to yield.

  2. President pro tem (presiding)37:37

     Thank you for that presentation. Is there discussion to this bill? There's none. Senator Stratton back to you for summation or a motion

  3. Sen. Keven J. Stratton37:45

     I'll waive summation and move that house. Senate Bill two 13, Utah Payment and Wage Act be passed.

  4. President pro tem (presiding)37:52

     And the question is, shall Senate bill two 13 pass Roll call vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Lewin Aye. Bramer bus Colmore Aye Es. Camilla Aye. Bill Moore Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Aye. Juab McKay Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Musman Owens Aye. Pitcher, mom Blum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Senate Bill two 13 Having received 25 yay votes, one na vote three being absent passes the Senate will be sent to the house for further consideration. Senate bill two 15, Senate Bill two 15 Eviction record amendments. Senator Pitcher. Senator Pitcher.

• Feb 25, 2026 House Judiciary Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (77 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:52:22

     SB two three, Utah Payment of Wages Act, statute of Limitations from Senator Stratton, Representative Lisonbee. I also see a substitute online. I don't know if you're speaking to that Representative Lisonbee.

  2. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:52:41

     It's helpful. I think Another, I Think it's just, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Committee. Uh, I have with me Mark Tolman, who, um, would also like to present this bill with me. SB two 13 is, uh, an attempt to clarify the law around statute of limitations period for lawsuits on payment of wages. And I will turn the time over to Mark to further elucidate the committee.

  3. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management1:53:13

     Thank you. Good morning. My name is Mark Tolman. I am chairperson of the Labor and Employment Department at Parsons Bailey in Latimer in Salt Lake City. I also volunteer as the Legal Affairs Director for the Salt Lake chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management or Salt Lake shrm and I serve in the same volunteer role on the Utah State SHM Counsel. So SB 213 amends the Utah Payment of Wages Act to clarify that the statute of limitations for a wage claim filed in court is one year. Uh, under our system, an employee who believes they're owed unpaid wages has a couple of mechanisms to bring that claim. Two different forums for claims up to $10,000. They can go to the Utah Labor Commission Wage Division and pursue their claim there. And there's an administrative scheme in place for that, including with appeals to the district court 30 days, uh, after a final ruling from the Labor Commission, uh, 10,000 is the maximum claim that can be filed with the Labor Commission for claims, either individually or collectively that are greater than $10,000. The next section of the law Section 9.5, allows employees to go, again, individually or together to court to file a lawsuit for unpaid wages. The original provision of the UPWA, you'll find it in section, uh, nine one E states that a wage claim shall be filed within one year after the day on which the wages were earned. Well, for many years, the only mechanism to, to bring a claim under the UPWA was with the Labor Commission. Even if you had a really large claim, it would be capped at $10,000. So in 2017, the UPWA was amended. We added Section 9.5, and that's the section that I referred to a moment ago that allows, again, an individual or a group of individuals who have a claim greater than $10,000 to go to court. Well, when that law was amended, uh, to add section 9.5, the legislature didn't address the statute of limitations for a wage claim lawsuit. Um, it's just simply silent. There's simply nothing there to indicate that a larger limitations period was intended. And in fact, we heard testimony at the Senate Committee hearing from one of the attorneys involved in drafting that 2017 amendment, that that was not the legislature's intent. Nevertheless, the silence in 9.5 has led to some, uh, inconsistent court rulings. About six years ago, we had a decision from one of our federal trial court judges that looked at seven section 9.5, found no statute of limitations there and applied a default three year period. Just last year though, we had a Utah State trial court Judge look at the exact same issue and say, now, hold on. When the, when the statute was initially enacted, the legislature said a wage claim must be filed within one year. Here we are in my courtroom, addressing a wage claim and held this was Judge Shaughnessy, uh, that it was the legislature's intent, uh, to follow a one year period through both sections. Now, at some point, if we don't get clarity from the legislature, I suspect a Utah appellate court will tell us what y'all meant in 2017. So, Senate Bill two 13 takes the decision from the courts and places it in your hand. Uh, from a policy basis. I will tell you, I've looked long and hard. I am not aware of any statute of limitations in Utah that varies based on the size of the claim or the form where you file it. What's more one year is an appropriate limitations period. It's not uncommon in employment claims. For example, I would argue a much more serious claim for employment discrimination that has to be filed within 180 days. Now, I have heard some concern, particularly from plaintiff's lawyers. Well, what happens if the employee doesn't know that they've been denied unpaid wages? Well, you know, our law already has a mechanism for that. It's called equitable tolling. It says that if a wrongdoer actively conceals their misconduct, the statute of limitations is told until you discover it. It goes one step further. Even if there's been no active concealment, if the claimant did not know and acting reasonably couldn't have discovered their claim, well, the limitations period is told for that too. But if they're aware of their claim and look, they ought to be for wages. They get pay stubs every couple of weeks, um, after their termination, that last pay stub has to be paid within 24 hours. And this amendment simply clarifies that. Look, if you got a big claim, you want to go to court, um, come, come to us within a year, just like we said. So in section nine, happy to answer your questions.

  4. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:57:59

     Thank you. That concludes our presentation, unless you'd like to

  5. Committee chair1:58:03

     Add anything. Thank you so much. We'll go to the committee for clarifying questions. We'll first go to Representative Grant Millard.

  6. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller1:58:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, my questions for Mr. Tolman really appreciated your, uh, presentation. Uh, thank you. It was really engaging. You're really, oh, I wanna see you in a courtroom now. Yeah. Well, I'm a lawyer. You could hire me. Uh, It's, uh, just might, we'll see what, uh, what kind of trouble I get into. Um, just some quick follow up questions instead of, uh, the, the current statute, uh, if the, uh, um, I don't wanna use the word rares, but if, if the, uh, amount in controversy is under the $10,000, uh, there's administrative remedies, do those administrative remedies still exist if it's over $10,000?

  7. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management1:58:43

     N no. Okay. So you must Oh, Sorry. Yeah, if it's claimed over 10,000, I guess you could bring it with the Labor Commission, but it's gonna be capped at $10,000.

  8. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller1:58:52

     Okay. Yeah. Um, for, so this law only, uh, applies to matters over $10,000 when you must go to the district court, then

  9. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management1:59:02

     Yeah. If you want to pursue a statutory claim for unpaid wages in court, uh, section 9.5 addresses that. If you're an individual, you've gotta have a claim greater than $10,000. Um, if, if your claim is less than $10,000, then to get into a courtroom, you gotta get together with a group, a collective, uh, that aggregated is greater than $10,000. So the, the, the way to bring a claim for less than $10,000 in court, you'd have to have aggregated that with other claims exceeding that threshold.

  10. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller1:59:31

      Understood. Um, and in, if you seek administrative remedies under $10,000, um, and, and say that takes over a year and it's not in your favor, you want to then, now that you've exhausted the administrative of remedies, you wanna take it to the district court. This statute of limitations does not apply in that

  11. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management1:59:48

      Case C. Correct. 'cause we already have the Administrative Procedures Act. You have 30 days from the final decision of the Labor Commission if you don't like it, to take it to district court.

  12. Rep. Grant Amjad Miller1:59:58

      Awesome. Thank you.

  13. Committee chair2:00:00

      Thank you, Representative Miller. We'll, now go to Representative Abbott.

  14. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:00:03

      Thank you. So, I, I have some questions and thank you for your presentation. I think this is an important bill because obviously there's courts that have interpreted differently. Some have said the typical four year statute of limitation applies, and I assume that's because it's a verbal contract, and then others have said no, it's a one year contract. Uh, one year statute of limitation,

  15. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:00:22

      Not, not quite. Okay. So the federal court that looked at this in 2020 saw no statute of limitations. Okay. There's a default statute that says, for liabilities created by our state law, unless we tell you otherwise, it's three years. Okay. So that's what, that's how the federal court looked at that in 2020, when the state court looked at that in 2025, said, well, it, it is addressed. The, the UPWA is not silent on the statute of limitations. This tells us right in section nine, that a wage claim needs to be filed within one year. So all that section two, all that we've done is we've taken that language from section nine and we've copied it and we've dropped it and pasted it in 9.5, just to be clear, that one year follows through. Okay.

  16. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:01:03

      So I wanna look at this from a bigger perspective. 'cause typically when we have a short statute of limitations, it's because we want to discourage that type of lawsuit, right? So, for example, if the employer were to loan money to the employee, say for a uniform or whatever, and the employee was paying them back, say, $10 a month or something, um, the statute of limitations on for the employer to sue the employee would start to run when the employee made the last payment. It may be after it doesn't even start to run when they get the uniform, it doesn't start to run when they turn, uh, uh, terminate their employment, it starts to, so if the employee waited six years and then made a $10 payment, they would get a new statute of limitations. The, the employer would get a new statute of limitations to sue that employee, correct?

  17. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:01:55

      No, I don't think so. I think your, your cause of action arises at the moment of breach. And it's a great point you're making, uh, Representative Abbott, because we're just talking about one way that a wage claim can be filed. There's a lot of ways that disputes over wages can be filed, including through contract actions. And so I think that's the hypothetical you're bringing up. What happens if there's a contract in place between an employer and an employer, whether the employee owes the employer money or vice versa, breach of contract is six years. Right? Both parties to that contract have that six year statute of limitations. And so an employee, unless

  18. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:02:28

      It's a wage no, now we go to one year. No,

  19. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:02:31

      Not true. Um, if you wanna sue under the Utah Payment of Wages Act, you've got one year. If you wanna sue under your employment agreement, you've got four to six years, depending on whether that's an oral agreement or a written one. Okay. If you wanna sue for fraud, you've got three years, nothing about the UPWA forecloses fraud claims and contract claims. It's simply, if you want to pursue your wage claim under this statute, you've gotta file it within one year.

  20. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:02:59

      Okay. And the advantage you're getting under this statute is you're getting attorney's fees, you're getting a 60 days worth

  21. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:03:04speaker not certain

      of penalties and anything else? That's It. Okay.

  22. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:03:07

      So you're saying we're justified in giving the employee a much shorter statute of limitations because it's under the statute, whereas if the employer sues the employee, it's not under the statute, so we can give 'em four or six years or

  23. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:03:23

      Whatever it's, I if there's a lawsuit between an employee and an employer, regardless of who the plaintiff is, that's not r arising under the UPWA, well then yeah, the one year period in the UPWA wouldn't apply.

  24. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:03:34

      And what's the disadvantage of giving an employee three years or Sure. Four years under the, under the Wage Act. So, so

  25. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:03:42

      Chair, may I answer that question? Absolutely. Thank you. One of the challenges we have is certainty in the marketplace in this space. And I do want to point out that the, uh, there is a tolling of the statute of limitations if the employee is not aware of the issue. So there's that, those remedies and equity as well, that, that, that come into place. So those, those are two things, but we do need to have a major certainty in this space in the marketplace. And it, it's, it's, it's, it is a very appropriate, if an employee has a legitimate claim that there's, that, let's bring it forward, let's get it out. Let's, let's, let's not create the dysfunction in the workplace and enable that by,

  26. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:04:27speaker not certain

      By. So I've been told, and tell me if I'm wrong, that's what,

  27. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:04:31speaker not certain

      That's how I would start. But be glad. What you

  28. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:04:33

      Had, I've been told, and tell me if I'm wrong on this or, or the information I've been given is incorrect because the statute of limitation begins to toll when the wage is earned, not when the employment ends or when the last wage was paid. It begins when the wage was earned. If an employee, and this is may be frequent in Utah, an employees working for a startup, they may be promised wages that aren't paid. Right. And they continue to working for that startup because they're hoping for some equity or they're hoping whatever, if the business goes outta business, they never get that wage and there's nobody to sue and it's over. But if the business becomes successful, the employee only gets one year of deferred wages because the statute of limitations under this bill runs from the date that wage was earned, not from the date of termination of employment. So it's foreseeable, I think, in a situation where you have a startup and there's a lot of deferred wages, um, that people could lose wages that were promised to them by the statute of limitations before their employment even ends. The

  29. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:05:42

      Way that I would answer that chair, if that's okay, may I Absolutely. Thank you. Is it, there, there, there's, it's two prongs. Number one, the wages do, and number two, the employee becomes aware that it's not being paired. So those, those are two things. And the wage coming due in that case is not due until later. It's told, because there's an expectation when we get to this point, we're going to have an opportunity then to play due. So I think that, that, that's the two prongs I would offer there. But,

  30. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:06:13

      And, and I would also add that in 2017, the Utah Payment of Wages Act was amended to add personal liability to officers and owners. So there would be a remedy under the statute, even if the employer, uh, goes out of business, its owners who were making those promises, uh, can be personally sued, strict liability for unpaid wages.

  31. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:06:33

      Okay. I would feel more comfortable with this bill if we changed it to start the statute of limitations at the time that the last wage was paid. I, I know you disagree with me and you don't think that how it works, say in, uh, a mortgage payment or a car payment, but I, I'm 99% sure that we told the statute of limitations until it doesn't even start to run until the last payment is made. And it seems like it ought to be the same here. As long as there's some wages being paid and there's, there's periodic payments, they're going, don't start the statute. I would feel much more comfortable with something like that than saying, well, it just, it's a hard, and, and I, I get it. You're saying there's maybe a creative argument that could be made to say it's not really told, but I don't know about that. I don't know if I'm convinced. So I have some serious concerns about this bill, but I'll listen to the public comment and whatever else happens. But I, to me, it seems like we're being unduly harsh on employees. They're getting the worst deal out of everybody, and they're probably the ones that deserve the best deal.

  32. Committee chair2:07:41

      Thank, thank you, Representative Abbott. We'll go to seat 24, but I'm guessing that's Representative Loubet.

  33. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:07:50

      You are correct. Alright. Am I on now? Yeah. Yeah. Can you hear me? Here we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you are correct? I am C 24. Um, and thank you Mr. Tolman, for your patience in helping me, uh, answering my questions. Uh, this is an area of law that I'm not very familiar with in the statute as, uh, we were talking about. It isn't exactly, entirely clear, at least it makes it so it sound, uh, a little bit ambiguous on some of the elements. And so I wanted to kinda just touch base on one of the things that we have talked about. So under 9.5, that's section two. There's language that says that, uh, the, uh, employee may file an action for a wage claim in a court without exhausting the administrative remedies described in section 34 dash 28 9 and rules made by the commission under section 34 dash 28 9. If, and you have this A, B, and C. But under this, this section, is there any administrative remedies that any of the people under A, B and C would be able to take advantage of?

  34. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:08:52

      Yes. So I've been noodling on this since we spoke. Look at, if you look not an A mm-hmm. Right? For a claim greater than $10,000 for an individual, you gotta go to court. But if you look at B and C, um, these talk about aggregated claims. And so an individual does have an option to either go to court with an aggregated claim collectively that is greater than 10, or if they want to go to the wage division and only pursue their individual wage claim less than $10,000, they can. So I suspect that language you're referring to in section two is intended to protect employees that are part of B and C. Just to make it clearer that unscrupulous defense lawyers don't argue. Now, hold on. You can't file this class action 'cause y'all had to go to court. Y'all had to go to the wage division first. So I think that's why it's probably there.

  35. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:09:39

      So if that's the case, is it possible then for an employee to file with the commission and a class action concurrently?

  36. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:09:48

      No. No, I wouldn't think so. Okay. Yeah, they, they, if they want to go alone, they can go alone and they can go to the wage division if their individual claim is less than 10.

  37. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:09:59

      Okay. So they can't take advantage of both. I mean, obviously I would think that whatever outcome of either would be that you couldn't have a windfall of having, getting awarded twice. Right. Yeah. But I was just curious. You wouldn't want that. Okay. Yep. Um, and then the other question about the equitable tolling that was mentioned, um, uh, there was a comment about you could have somebody who made an agreement, uh, with a startup. And, and I can actually speak, like, there's a person in my ward that this is the exact situation where their first job out of college, they're working for a startup, and then all of a sudden they stopped getting paid. And they, they've earned it, they've worked it, they got a, a pay thing saying that they should be getting it, but they're, they're telling 'em, don't worry, it's gonna be coming. We're just waiting for our next seed round. Right? And so it's been a few months and they still are not paid yet. And I, of course, I've encouraged them, like we go to the Labor Commission, um, but it's hard for them because they work for the company. This is their first job, and they don't want to ruin that. And this company maybe could go big. And so they're, uh, holding off on it. And so I'm curious in a situation like this, like how does would equitable tolling apply or does it not apply at all? Something like that?

  38. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:11:08

      If some, if that owner is lying to them, they say, look, the money's coming and it's not coming. Yeah. Right. Then I think there could be tolling in that situation. But if the employee goes in eyes wide open and knows the risks and knows the circumstances, and is willing to distrust these folks knowing full well that they may never get that seed money, then you're not gonna have equitable tolling. You're still gonna have breach contract claim four to six years. Again, oral versus written. Um, but statute of limitations, they exist for a reason. Right. They encourage the prompt resolution of claims before witnesses, before documents fade. And if you know all the facts and you're willing to sit on your claims, well, statute of limitations say you're gonna lose part of your claim. And I would just, again, urge you to consider that this is just one way that that claim can be pursued and fraud and contract claims much longer, three to six years. And those claims exist outside the statute of, uh, the Utah Payment of Wages

  39. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:11:59

      Act. Okay. And, and in all situations, I just help me be clear. Uh, does an employee have those other options like the verbal or written contractual claims in addition to their wage claims under the statute? Or is it only in some situations where these other claims may apply?

  40. Mark Tolman, Utah State Society for Human Resource Management2:12:17

      I, I can't imagine a situation. You would almost always, I can't imagine a situation where an employee wouldn't at least be able to allege a verbal agreement. Okay. I said I'd work for you. You said you'd pay me. That's a contract. Okay. Even if it's not in writing.

  41. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:12:30

      Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  42. Committee chair2:12:32

      Thank you, Representative Loubet. That concludes our discussion and clarifying question portion. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak to this bill? 1, 2, 3, 3 in person. Is there anyone online? One individual online. We'll, go ahead. I apologize for doing this. I'm gonna do a minute and a half, if that's okay. We're running up against a hard stop for floor time. Um, so come on up. All right. Thank

  43. Anthony Tenney, Scholnick Thorne Holland2:13:02

      Hello, representatives. I'm Anthony Tenney. I'm an attorney representing the law firm of Skolnik Thorn Holland, of which you all are probably aware of. Lauren Skolnik, uh, the founding partner. I want to just start with framework. Uh, this is about protecting workers. The Utah Payment of Wages Act is set up to allow workers to have a remedy when employers do not hold up their end of the bargain Now in Utah, the state of industry. Right. I fully agree with Representative Abbott that we should be giving workers, I think he said the best deal. Right? And I think what's important here is that we recognize this as an opportunity for workers to get what is already owed to them. Okay. And I think, uh, respectfully, I think the best way to avoid, uh, confusion in the market or uncertainty is to pay your workers on time and what they're owed, uh, not to change a statute of limitations, to shorten it from what we've had several years of past practice, uh, with us. I think that technically as it stands, the bill also has some ambiguity, uh, about the statute of limitations, uh, when it comes to exhaustion of administrative remedies versus not. Uh, and I think that, uh, in this particular case, there's a lot of clarity that needs to be had, uh, and I urge you to vote no and allow employees and workers, uh, as well as the attorneys involved to sit down and sort this out. Thank you.

  44. Committee chair2:14:31

      Thank you, sir. Welcome.

  45. Kent Streuling, America First Credit Union2:14:34

      My name's Kanosh Sterling. I'm the Senior Vice President of Human Resources for America First Credit Union. I've been an HR professional for 35 years. I also sit here today representing my HR colleagues from the Thrive Chapters of the Society for Human Resources throughout the state of Utah. I've also served as the past state director of that organization. I speak in favor of this amendment today, and here's the reasons. In my experience over the past few years, and in my role at A FCU, we have witnessed an increase in class action wage lawsuits filed or threatened from out-of-state lawyers who are targeting Utah businesses. They're using the ambiguity in the Utah Payment Wages Act to gain a strategic advantage by pairing a federal claim with a lack of clarity in the act, which in turns pads their pockets, taking as much as 40% of the payout for them. This clarifying amendment simply tells the parties where they stand. Thank you. Thank

  46. Committee chair2:15:35

      You, sir. Welcome, Mr. Davis. Oh, I apologize. Um, sir, you did have a question for you from Representative Loubet. My apologies. Sorry. Representative Loubet. Thank

  47. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:15:47

      You, Mr. Chair. And, uh, thank you for that. So, a question that I have for you, um, based on what I was hearing from Mr. Tolman. So if, uh, the statute was reduced to one year for something like this, um, uh, that would potentially remove this claim from being brought against your, your client, your employer, but, uh, potentially there still would be other claims that these out-of-state lawyers would bring against your

  48. Kent Streuling, America First Credit Union2:16:12

      It's possible, yes.

  49. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:16:13

      Okay. Just wanted to verify. Thank you.

  50. Committee chair2:16:16

      Thank you, sir. Thank you. Representative Loubet, Mr. Davis.

  51. Dave Davis, Utah Retail Merchants Association2:16:19

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dave Davis, president of the Utah Retail Merchants Association in Utah Food Industry Association, and here speaking on behalf of my business, uh, uh, clients. Just to emphasize a few things, um, uh, employees are gonna know whether or not they're owed wages typically within 24 hours, if they're terminated or the next regular pay period if they are, uh, uh, leaving the ordinary course of business. These are gonna be really large claims. Anything they need to be over $10,000. And as Senator Stratton says, from a business perspective, this brings some certainty. I happen to work with, uh, um, retailers that have high turnover rates in their business. And so having these things go on for years and years, I know you all think I've been up here for my whole life, but prior to this, I was general counsel for a grocery wholesaler and retailer. And sometimes reconstructing things two, three years after the, after the fact when people have moved along, is it's a difficult undertaking. So we know these claims that, that we know that they're out there, let's get 'em cleaned up as quickly and expeditiously as possible. And the last thought I'd leave you with, this is a clarification. You can either choose to make this clarification as a legislature, or you can let the courts do it for you. And I think that I know where this legislative body generally is on that question. Thank you. Thank

  52. Committee chair2:17:59

      You. Mr. Davis. We'll go to, we have one person online. Who is it online? Tracy Olson. Mr. Uh, Tracy Olson. Thank you.

  53. Tracy Olson, Attorney2:18:28

      Thank you. I'm Tracy Olson. I am an attorney, uh, represent employees, um, also a member of the Utah Association for Justice and the Utah Employment Lawyers Association. Um, and we, uh, I'm speaking in opposition to this bill. Um, I wanna make one clarification. There is no attorney's fees provision in the Utah Payment of Wages Act. There's no award of attorney's fees under this. Um, but I think the biggest thing is, is that there already is a statute of limitations on the books. It's been there for, uh, at over 90 years. And so 78 B dash two dash 3 0 7, it's not under the catchall provision. It's under the provisions that says that it's a four year statute of limitations after the last charge is made, or the last payment is received on an open account for work labor or services rendered, or materials furnished. And so I think that these, these prior court rulings have just kind of missed the boat on this actual statute of limitations, that there is already a statute of limitations on wages, and it's based on the, the last charges made or the last payments received in that situation. I think the public policy of, of the state of Utah very much favors, you know, may putting payment of wages as a priority. It, um, uh, section 34 dash 26 has, uh, that it is a priority debt. Um, and I think there's some, uh, some differences with the administrative se sections, administrative remedies and court remedies. Thank you.

  54. Committee chair2:20:09

      Thank you, sir. We'll come back to the committee. That will conclude our public comment portion. We'll come back to the committee on for action on Senate bill 2 1 3. I see a substitute and an amendment online, um, as well. And just a heads up, it is 9 52. Representative Abbott

  55. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:20:39

      Make a motion that we hold this item. I don't necessarily want to kill it. I think we do need a bill in this space, but I want to resolve some of my concerns. We do have a hearing tomorrow at four, so, um, if we could put this back on the agenda, I'd love it. But anyways,

  56. Committee chair2:20:56

      So the motion is to hold this legislation. Yeah. And it sounds like that that was kind of your explanation if to speak to it. Is that, or do you wanna speak further to that?

  57. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:21:04

      Well, I'll Juab I'll just say further. Um, I think wages can be more complex than we think. Um, I think, yeah, sometimes people are just paid by the hour or paid by the pay period, but there's a lot of people that work on commission. The commission may not even be payable, uh, until long down the road. Right. Maybe it's contingent upon a sale being completed or whatever it is. And so we, I think there's, it's, in fact, I have a friend who was on a commission contract that didn't terminate unemployment, and they were entitled to co continue collecting commissions for several years after employment ended. I, it would be very difficult to bring a wage, uh, wage claim like that within a year. Right? And so there may be exceptions, or there may be other ways to do it. I think it was mentioned, but I think this is a complex area, and I'm just not convinced why we are cutting the statute of limitations for employees in this situation. So I, I'd like to work with the, the bill sponsor and the stakeholders and see if we can't find something that's a little more fair to employees.

  58. Committee chair2:22:18

      Okay. Thank you, Representative Abbott. The motion is to hold, we'll now go to the sponsor of the legislation. Senator Stratton on the motion to hold.

  59. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:22:27

      Well, I'll be here tomorrow, four o'clock. And, uh, so I, I, I, I think part of the committee process is to try and come up with the best version. I, and, and, uh, love, love any input. The bill has been, we haven't had a negative vote on this bill yet. It's been through committee and 3, 2 2 over in the Senate. And so I, but I, I'm not opposed to that. Certainly, I, I think, uh, I don't, I don't perceive it as a tactic to kill the bill, you know, and I, I think we probably have support from the committee as the bill is as well, though. I do appreciate the one comment of, uh, of, uh, that, that, that there might be some vagueness, and I think maybe the amendment, uh, if it's from Representative Bay, is that the amendment that we talked about? I'm not sure that's online. I don't know if that's it. I would support that amendment as well. I'm certainly, if the committee's ready to move forward, I'd like to do that. If, if you want to pause, that's fine. If we move forward, I, I love the, the maker of the motion. You know, we represent the same clientele. We Uintah law school together. We had a long relationship. I'm glad to continue to work with him in the same way to, to, to, to amend. It's gotta come back to the Senate regardless if we're gonna amend it with the representative Loa Bay. So I, I'd probably say, uh, if the committee's willing, let's, let's amend it to put Representative Loa Bay's amendment on it and move it forward. And, and, uh, I'll continue to work with the, with the maker of the motion. So, but if, but I'll yield to the committee

  60. Committee chair2:24:06

      Senator just confirming that was BYU Law School.

  61. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:24:10

      Thank you for the Absolutely. Absolutely. J Ruben Clark, baby Joe

  62. Committee chair2:24:13

      Cougars. All right. Just had to put that in there, uh, uh, discussion on the motion to hold. Seeing none. We'll go back to Representative Abbott to that discussion, to to, to some.

  63. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott2:24:26

      So I, I've known the sponsor for a long time, as he said, and if he tells me he'll continue to work on this, I'll withdraw my motion. We can favorably recommend it, and I'll just rely on his good faith that we'll continue to work with stakeholders and get this to a place where it's actually I, Where you feel good about It.

  64. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:24:46

      Yeah. Thank you. Yeah,

  65. Committee chair2:24:47

      We'll Try. Okay. So the motion to hold has been withdrawn. We're back to, uh, SB two 13 from Senator Stratton and Representative Loubet.

  66. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:25:01

      Thank you, miss. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I like to move that we adopt amendment number, house amendment number one in my name.

  67. Committee chair2:25:08

      I motions in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  68. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:25:10

      Uh, yeah, briefly. So in, in my, uh, review of the statute and going through it, um, one of the things that added some confusion on that subsection two, was it made it seem like if you were pursuing something under subsection two, you would potentially have two different avenues, uh, that you could pursue both, that you can bring a claim before the Labor Commission and that you would have a private right of action. Um, and so what my amendment is doing is removing the language says, without exhausting the administrative remedies described in sub in section 34 dash 28 dash nine, and rules made by commission under section 34 dash 28 dash nine. Um, because if you're bringing a claim under a, B, or C, I mean those claims you, you can't bring a class action under, uh, that section. You can't bring one if your wages are over 10,000, um, and you can't, uh, do so anytime the amounts are exceeding the 10,000, you're not gonna be able to, to bring it under that, uh, other section anyways. And so I wanted to just make that clear that this is just applying to the private right of action.

  69. Committee chair2:26:17

      Thank you to the sponsor. Senator Stratton on the motion to amend,

  70. Sen. Keven J. Stratton2:26:22

      Uh, representative, is that what we talked about? The striking of language? I've not been able to pull the amendment up, but if that is, and I'm in favor and I I'd be supported. It seems to be friendly. Yes. If I understand the amendment, I like it.

  71. Committee chair2:26:34

      Okay. You got 90 seconds Discussion to the motion to amend. Seeing none to Representative Loubet for summation,

  72. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:26:41

      I would like to spend the next 90 seconds talking about, no kidding. I waive.

  73. Committee chair2:26:45

      Okay. Voice vote on the motion to amend, adopt house amendment one. All in favor of that, please say aye. Aye. Uh, any opposed? Okay. The bill is in front of us as amended Representative Loubet.

  74. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:26:58

      I move that we favorably recommend how, uh, Senate bill two 13 as amended.

  75. Committee chair2:27:02

      Okay. Uh, that motion? Nor would you like to speak to it?

  76. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:27:05

      Uh, I waive To the, to the sponsor. Okay.

  77. Committee chair2:27:09

      I'm gonna just say, I'm gonna procedurally vote no to show that there's work being done in the committee. Alright. We'll go ahead and do a voice vote. Um, on SB favorably, recommend SB two 13 as amended. All in favor of that, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Uh, so that motion passes a to one with Clancy voting. No Thank you Committee. Thank you. Well, one final motion. Motion Motion to adjourn. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

• Feb 26, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Sen. Keven J. Stratton3:09:45speaker not certain

     Well that's pretty wimpy. Okay, Lemme say it again. Motion to not concur. R And uh, petition the House to uh, correct their error and recede.

  2. Presiding officer3:10:00

     Okay. The motion is to refuse to concur and ask the house to recede from their amendments. Discussion that motion Our Say none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All rule that passes that bill will go back to the house for the recession.

  3. Presiding officer3:10:21

     Okay. Second substitute Senate bill 2 26. Second substitute Senate bill 2 26 Fatal Motor Vehicle Accident Amendments. Senator Millner.

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (17 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)1:45:17

     before us the House encircle Senate SB two 13. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes the bills uncircled before the body. Do you representative, uh, libe.

  2. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:45:29

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In order not to waste the body's time, I, we've worked carefully with several members to significantly revamp this policy. So I will forego, presenting and just, um, defer to the sponsor of Substitute two, the good representative from West Valley City, uh, to introduce his substitute.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:45:54

     Thank you rep, representative Libe discussion to the bill Representative MacPherson.

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:46:01

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion adopt. Second substitute.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:46:03

     Thank you, representative. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it?

  6. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:46:06

     Yes. So, uh, this is actually a pretty complicated change. Um, so I apologize. I'm gonna take just a moment. Currently under, uh, unpaid Wages Claim Act, um, you can file either an administrative or a civil claim. And there's been some, um, confusion over what the lim uh, what the, um, um, the statute of limitations is on this. A, um, federal district court had established a separate, um, timeline for this. And a state district court had established a separate, uh, timeline recently. And so there does need to be an adjustment to this code, but the adjustment is a little more complicated. So what this does is goes into the Unpaid Wages Claim Act that currently defines a business as both the company and its, um, its, uh, um, executives of that company. And under this particular act, you can file a claim against both the company for unpaid wages and against the actual, uh, board, um, under this act directly by adjusting this, um, liability, whether by limiting it to one year, which is what, uh, the bill seeks to do, or by reverting it to the four years, which is how, or the three to four years, which is how it's been operating previously, there's a huge adjustment to how that affects actual executives in a company. So what we're doing in this, under this, uh, substitute is we're breaking up the definition so that if you're filing that administrative or a civil claim within that first year, we will maintain that. You can file that against both the company and the executives of the business. But outside of that one year time period, it, and, and up to four years, that that would be limited only to the company and not to the officers of the business. We've also delayed the implementation out until 2027 so that the, um, companies and industries and attorneys can all look at and see how this would actually affect, uh, cases as they come through.

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:48:10

     Thank you, Representative MacPherson to Representative Libe on the motion to adopt second substitute under Representative McPherson's name.

  8. Unknown speaker1:48:17speaker not certain

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is an elegant solution to a very difficult problem, and I appreciate the good sponsor of this Substitute Two's work on this.

  9. Speaker (presiding)1:48:27

     Thank you Representative Libe discussion to the Motion to adopt second substitute under Representative McPherson's name. See none will go ahead and place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes? The bill's been substituted. And before the body for further consideration, let's go to Representative Loubet.

  10. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:48:52

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, may I reserve the right to make a motion? You may

  11. Speaker (presiding)1:48:56

      Reserve a right. Yes, go ahead.

  12. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:48:57

      Thank You, Mr. Speaker. I wanna speak in support of this bill. I commend the, um, substitute, uh, sponsor from West Valley City for his efforts in, um, working with me and other stakeholders in this to try to find us a way to make this section a little bit more understandable. Um, when, when, uh, we were looking at this originally, um, we can understand that there's been a lot of confusion in this area of what the statute of limitations should be. Um, there was confusions of whether it's a three or four or one year. And so, uh, in doing a lot of research, the sponsor was able to, to, to pick a, I think a good balance of addressing some of the concerns from employers while also protecting the rights of the employees. Um, I would like to move that we adopt House Amendment number one under my name.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:49:45

      Thank you, representative. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  14. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:49:49

      Yes. With this little change, uh, the CI there, this, the citation that was provided in the Substitute for judicial review, uh, was for the formal process, uh, where this is more of an informal process that's done through the administrative, uh, it's an informal administrative review process. And so this is the correct citation.

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:50:11

      Thank you, Representative Loubet discussion or Representative Libe on the motion to amend friendly amendment. Thank you, representative Discussion to the motion to adopt amendment number one under Representative Lu Bay's name, scene none. Representative Loubet, would you like to sum on that motion?

  16. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:50:30

      I'll waive. Go ahead and place the motion.

  17. Speaker (presiding)1:50:32

      The motion before is the house adopt amendment number one. Under Representative Lou Bay's name on second substitute SB two 13. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been amended before the body. For further consideration back to your representative, be for summation. I'll Waive. Thank you Mr. Been waive voting will now be open on second substitute SB two 13. Its vote quickly. Representatives seeing all present having voted voting is now closed. Second substitute SB two 13 passes this body with 68 Yes votes one no vote and will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Madam Meeting Clerk Second substitute, SJR 16 Joint Rules Resolution,

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (15 turns)

  1. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:46:01

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion adopt. Second substitute.

  2. Speaker (presiding)1:46:03

     Thank you, representative. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it?

  3. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:46:06

     Yes. So, uh, this is actually a pretty complicated change. Um, so I apologize. I'm gonna take just a moment. Currently under, uh, unpaid Wages Claim Act, um, you can file either an administrative or a civil claim. And there's been some, um, confusion over what the lim uh, what the, um, um, the statute of limitations is on this. A, um, federal district court had established a separate, um, timeline for this. And a state district court had established a separate, uh, timeline recently. And so there does need to be an adjustment to this code, but the adjustment is a little more complicated. So what this does is goes into the Unpaid Wages Claim Act that currently defines a business as both the company and its, um, its, uh, um, executives of that company. And under this particular act, you can file a claim against both the company for unpaid wages and against the actual, uh, board, um, under this act directly by adjusting this, um, liability, whether by limiting it to one year, which is what, uh, the bill seeks to do, or by reverting it to the four years, which is how, or the three to four years, which is how it's been operating previously, there's a huge adjustment to how that affects actual executives in a company. So what we're doing in this, under this, uh, substitute is we're breaking up the definition so that if you're filing that administrative or a civil claim within that first year, we will maintain that. You can file that against both the company and the executives of the business. But outside of that one year time period, it, and, and up to four years, that that would be limited only to the company and not to the officers of the business. We've also delayed the implementation out until 2027 so that the, um, companies and industries and attorneys can all look at and see how this would actually affect, uh, cases as they come through.

  4. Speaker (presiding)1:48:10

     Thank you, Representative MacPherson to Representative Libe on the motion to adopt second substitute under Representative McPherson's name.

  5. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:48:17

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is an elegant solution to a very difficult problem, and I appreciate the good sponsor of this Substitute Two's work on this.

  6. Speaker (presiding)1:48:27

     Thank you Representative Libe discussion to the Motion to adopt second substitute under Representative McPherson's name. See none will go ahead and place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes? The bill's been substituted. And before the body for further consideration, let's go to Representative Loubet.

  7. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:48:52

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, may I reserve the right to make a motion? You may

  8. Speaker (presiding)1:48:56

     Reserve a right. Yes, go ahead.

  9. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:48:57

     Thank You, Mr. Speaker. I wanna speak in support of this bill. I commend the, um, substitute, uh, sponsor from West Valley City for his efforts in, um, working with me and other stakeholders in this to try to find us a way to make this section a little bit more understandable. Um, when, when, uh, we were looking at this originally, um, we can understand that there's been a lot of confusion in this area of what the statute of limitations should be. Um, there was confusions of whether it's a three or four or one year. And so, uh, in doing a lot of research, the sponsor was able to, to, to pick a, I think a good balance of addressing some of the concerns from employers while also protecting the rights of the employees.

  10. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:49:39

      Um, I would like to move that we adopt House Amendment number one under my name.

  11. Speaker (presiding)1:49:45

      Thank you, representative. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  12. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:49:49

      Yes. With this little change, uh, the CI there, this, the citation that was provided in the Substitute for judicial review, uh, was for the formal process, uh, where this is more of an informal process that's done through the administrative, uh, it's an informal administrative review process. And so this is the correct citation.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:50:11

      Thank you, Representative Loubet discussion or Representative Libe on the motion to amend friendly amendment. Thank you, representative Discussion to the motion to adopt amendment number one under Representative Lu Bay's name, scene none. Representative Loubet, would you like to sum on that motion? I'll waive. Go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the house adopt amendment number one. Under Representative Lou Bay's name on second substitute SB two 13. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been amended before the body. For further consideration back to your representative, be for summation. I'll

  14. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:50:52

      Waive. Thank you Mr.

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:50:53

      Been waive voting will now be open on second substitute SB two 13. Its vote quickly. Representatives seeing all present having voted voting is now closed. Second substitute SB two 13 passes this body with 68 Yes votes one no vote and will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Madam Meeting Clerk

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)1:38:27

     Representative Libe Motion to adopt the conference committee report. Thank you representative. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to that motion?

  2. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:38:36

     Yes. We came to an agreement on the statute of limitations for administrative cases will remain the same as it was before of one year and for, uh, civil side two years and we changed the effective date to May 6th, 2026.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:38:54

     Thank you representative Liz b. Discussion to the motion to or to adopt the committee report. Representative Stoddard.

  4. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:39:01

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I just want to rise in support of the language that was crafted and just plainly state that the house dominated the Senate in this and got what we wanted. So ask for your support. Thank

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:39:16

     You. Representative Stoddard voted. Uh, we'll go ahead and place or representative Liz be back to you for summation.

  6. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:39:23

     I'll waive. Thank you. Summation has been waived.

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:39:24

     We'll go ahead and place the, uh, motion. The motion to be forced to adopt the conference committee report on four substitute SB two 13. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? Voting will now be open on final passage on four substitute SB two 13 vote quickly. Representatives seeing now present having voted voting is now closed. Four. Substitute SB two 13 passed this body with 65 Yes votes one no vote and be sent to the Senate for the further consideration. Let's go to Representative Bollinger representatives. Bring down the volume please.