Far-ranging workplace temperature regulations that would have applied to both indoor and outdoor workplaces were stopped after opposition from NFIB and other groups.

HB 3762 (Gonzalez) passed out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee but failed to advance on the floor.

“These proposed regulations would shut down small businesses,” noted NFIB Illinois State Director at the time. “Small businesses lack the administrative capacity to implement all these regulations and requirements, and the way this bill is written, if they fell short in any way, they’d be subject to expensive civil fines and lawsuits—something few small business owners could afford.”

The proposed regulations would have regulated both indoor and outdoor workplaces.

–  For outdoor workplaces, the proposed regulations would apply when the temperature drops to 32°F or lower or rises to 79°F or higher.

–  For indoor workplaces, the regulations would take effect at 65 degrees or lower if light work is being performed and at 60 degrees or lower if heavy work is being performed. They would also kick in if the temperature hit 79 degrees indoors.

These temperatures would have triggered significant requirements for employers, including:

–  Provision of shelter and additional rest breaks

–  Extensive temperature and employee monitoring

–  Provision of warm non-caffeinated beverages (cold)/water cooler than 61 degrees (hot)

–  Provision of personal protective equipment, such as cooling vests, moisture-wicking undergarments, light-colored and breathable outer garments, wide-brim hats, insulated gloves and mittens, thermal underlayers, windproof and water-resistant outer garments, insulated footwear, face coverings, neck gaiters, and heated or battery-powered warming devices

–  Annual training

–  Limited employee exposure time

–  Periodic employee reminders to drink liquids in small amounts

–  And much more—read the bill for yourself here

Under the proposed legislation, employees could refuse to work if they reasonably believed that the employer had not complied with the workplace temperature regulations or that working under the temperature conditions could result in worker illness or injury.

Employers would have been subject to fines and civil lawsuits for violations of the proposed law. An employer would have been presumed to have unlawfully retaliated against an employee if the employer fired or took other adverse action against an employee within 90 days of the employee exercising his rights under the act.