Virginia Advances Heat Illness Legislation While Other States Are Poised to Follow Suit

Heat illness prevention continues to be a key focus for state regulators as they move to fill the void left by OSHA’s still-uncompleted proposed heat standard. Most recently, the Virginia legislature approved heat illness prevention legislation,¹ and a growing number of states have signaled they may soon follow suit. 

Pending Governor Abigail Spanberger’s signature, Virginia companion bills HB1092 and SB288, if enacted, would require Virginia’s Safety and Health Codes Board (the “Board”), in consultation with Virginia’s Department of Labor & Industry, to develop standards protecting workers from heat illness in both indoor and outdoor work environments. These standards would need to be adopted by May 1, 2028. Per these bills, the standards must include: 

1. Requirements to provide employees with access to water, rest, shade or climate-controlled environments when practicable, acclimatization protocols, and effective training; 
2. Heat and high-heat procedures when the temperatures reach heat thresholds to be set by the Board at a later date; and 
3. Emergency response procedures.

These bills contain two exceptions. First, these requirements would not apply when employees provide emergency services. In addition, the requirements would not apply when heat exposure lasts less than 15 consecutive minutes.

Not to be left behind, Colorado and Rhode Island are also considering legislation regulating heat illness. While Colorado currently has heat illness prevention requirements for agricultural workers, it is looking to expand its heat safety legislation with HB26-1272. If adopted, this bill would require the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to collect data on injuries, illnesses, and emergencies caused by heat or cold stress beginning January 1, 2027. The bill would also require employers of workers exposed to hot or cold temperatures to develop a temperature-related injury and illness prevention plan (TRIIPP) that must be submitted to the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics for review by September 1, 2028. The proposed bill includes a list of definitions, temperature safety requirements, training, and emergency response procedures. 

Colorado’s proposed legislation also authorizes a mechanism for plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive damages for employees who can prove the statute was violated with malice or reckless indifference to their rights, although an employer could avoid this by showing good-faith efforts to comply with the requirements.

This bill is currently pending before the House Appropriations Committee.

Rhode Island has three pending bills (H7966 and its Senate companion S2320, and H8311 (currently with no Senate companion)), which would regulate employee exposure to both hot and cold weather-related hazards. Like Colorado’s, Rhode Island’s bills would require the implementation and enforcement of a TRIIPP. Going even further, Rhode Island employers would be subject to numerous prescriptive measures including:

• “Extreme temperature” thresholds set at or above 90° F and at or below 30° F, without any consideration whether these temperatures represent serious health hazards at a given worksite;
• Specific requirements for acclimatization applicable to new employees and existing employees newly assigned to heat work, or absent from heat work for more than seven days;
• Delineating the size of mandatory shaded areas based on the number of resting employees;
• Specifying the precise temperature of available drinking water; and
• Requiring all employers to designate a specially trained temperature safety coordinator regardless of the size of a business or the transient nature of its workforce.

These bills are being held for further study by the House Labor Committee and the Senate Committee on Labor and Gaming. They have, however, been identified as a key legislative priority for the Rhode Island AFL-CIO. As demonstrated by these legislative initiatives, individual states, regardless of whether they maintain approved OSHA State Plans, are moving to address heat illness through legislation. While OSHA continues to enforce its general duty clause with respect to heat-related hazards, this may represent an unwillingness to wait to see what federal OSHA heat illness regulations may require. Employers should closely monitor legislative developments concerning weather-related hazards and consider consulting experienced workplace safety counsel on the potential impact such legislation may have on their operations.