HB923Introduced in the House of Delegates
Protection of employees; stay or pay contracts prohibited, civil penalty.
Introduced by Alfonso Lopez, District 3
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Protection of employees; stay or pay contracts prohibited; civil penalty. Prohibits an employer from entering into, enforcing, or threatening to enforce a stay or pay contract, as defined in the bill, with any employee, with certain exceptions described. An employer that violates the bill's provisions is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. The bill allows an employee to bring a civil action against an employer or other person that attempts to enforce a stay or pay contract and to seek appropriate relief, including enjoining the conduct of any person or employer, ordering payment of liquidated damages, and awarding lost compensation, damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. The bill provides that if the court finds a violation of the bill's provisions, the plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses, and attorney fees.
Where it stands
Failed to report from Commerce and Labor with substitute (6-Y 9-N)
March 9, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
House of Delegates votes
3 recorded votes · each counted separately
Senate votes
1 recorded vote · each counted separately
SenateStage: Failed to report from Commerce and Labor with substitute (6-Y 9-N) · March 9, 2026
6
Yes
9
No
0
Absent or Not Voting
15 senators recorded in this Senate vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each senator voted
| Senator | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Mark Obenshain | 2 | No |
| William Stanley | 7 | No |
| Mark Peake | 8 | No |
| Creigh Deeds | 11 | Yes |
| Lamont Bagby | 14 | Yes |
| Louise Lucas | 18 | No |
| Bill DeSteph | 20 | No |
| Aaron Rouse | 22 | Yes |
| Mamie Locke | 23 | No |
| Richard Stuart | 25 | No |
Bill history
Prefiled and ordered printed; Offered 01-14-2026 26102468D
Referred to Committee on Labor and Commerce
Assigned HCL sub: Subcommittee #2
House subcommittee offered
Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (6-Y 1-N)
Reported from Labor and Commerce with amendment(s) (16-Y 6-N)
Read first time
Read second time
committee amendments agreed to
Engrossed by House as amended
Read third time and passed House (63-Y 35-N 0-A)
Constitutional reading dispensed (on 1st reading)
Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
Fiscal Impact Statement from Department of Planning and Budget (HB923)
Senate committee offered
Failed to report from Commerce and Labor with substitute (6-Y 9-N)
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.