Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Beam

DATE TYPED 02/07/05 HB 578

SHORT TITLE Employee Leave for Certain Crime Victims

SB

ANALYST McSherry

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

House Bill 578 relates to and conflicts with HB 356.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Crime Victims Reparation Commission (CVRC)

Corrections Department (CD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 578 proposes a new section to the Victims of Crime Act, proposes an amended title

citation for the Act, and would repeal a section of the Act.

The proposed new section would require employers, with 25 or more employees, to allow leave

for employee-victims attending “proceedings that the victim has a right to attend.”

The section provides that for attending these proceedings employers could not: dismiss employ-

ees, cause the employee to loose seniority or precedence, discriminate against the employee, or

break confidentiality regarding the employee’s leave. The employer would not be required to

compensate the employee during such a leave of absence, could require that the employee use

sick, annual, vacation or personal leave, and could limit the leave allowed should the employer

demonstrate a “undue hardship on the employer’s business.” Should undue hardship be deter-

mined the district t attorney would have to contact the court and, if possible, the court would

have to take into account the availability of the employee-victim.

The employee-victim would be required to provide documentation for the employer: a copy of

documents provided by the district attorney and any notices of scheduled proceedings.

House Bill 578 -- Page 2

The bill proposes to repeal the “purpose of the Act” section of the Victims of Crime Act.

Significant Issues

The Crime Victims Reparation Commission (CVRC) asserts that the proposed act does not des-

ignate a responsible party for enforcement of this legislation, nor does it describe the actions an

employer could face if found in violation of the Act.

The Act would only apply to employers having 25 or more employees “for each working day

during 20 or more weeks of the current and proceeding calendar year.”

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

AOC asserts that there will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution,

and documentation of statutory changes.

The proposed changes may require additional administrative oversight from the district attorneys

and courts in order to manage the “undue hardships” of employers and to implement the schedul-

ing for the employee-victims’ cases.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

House Bill 578 is related to HB 356, which proposes some of the same protections to employee-

victims, but proposes the requirements to be applied to employers with 15 or greater employees.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Corrections Department questions why the bill proposes to repeal Section 31-26-2, the pur-

pose section of the Victims of Crime Act.

ALTERNATIVES

CVRC suggests that the bill could be amended to place a crime victim in a protected status for

purposes of the Human Rights Act.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

CVRC asserts that crime victims will continue to jeopardize their jobs when attending court pro-

ceedings that they have a right to attend.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

Why is the bill proposing to eliminate the “Purpose of Act” subsection of the Crime Vic-

tims Act.

2.

Should the same provisions proposed in HB 578 be applied to employee-witnesses in cer-

tain cases.

EM/rs:yr