The 2026 Florida Legislative Session is in full swing. There are several proposed bills that, if passed, may affect employers moving forward. The RumbergerKirk Employment team will continue to monitor these bills as they move through the legislative process and share updates to keep employers across Florida informed.

Providing a Clear Deadline for When An Employee Can File a Florida Civil Rights Act Lawsuit (HB 1407/SB 1096)

Currently, if an employee or applicant, believes they were discriminated against based on a protected class (race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, marital status) or retaliated against, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), before bringing a lawsuit, the employee must file a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR)

FCHR then has 180 days to investigate the charge and come to a determination. If FCHR makes a reasonable cause determination, then the employee has one year after the date of the determination to bring a lawsuit. However, Florida Statutes are silent as to when an employee could bring a lawsuit if FCHR failed to make a determination within 180 days. Making it even more confusing, there are times where even though FCHR has not made a determination, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) would authorize the employee to bring their federal law civil rights claims within 90 days. This leads to (at times absurd) scenarios where the parties could be waiting months, even years, before an employee could file her FCRA claims.

This proposed bill aims to address this ambiguity in the current version of the Florida Statute, where FCHR fails to issue a determination within 180 days. Essentially, the bill provides that an employee must commence their FCRA lawsuit (1) no later than one year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by FCHR or (2) the issuance of a notice of rights to sue by the EEOC, whichever is earlier. The proposed bill also provides that if FCHR fails to make a determination or the EEOC fails to issue a notice of rights to sue within 180 days after the filing of the charge, the employee has 18 months (1 year + 180 days) to commence a lawsuit.

Requiring All Employers to Use E-Verify System (HB 197/SB 1278/SB 1542)

This proposed bill would require all private employers, instead of just employers with 25 or more employees, to use the E-Verify System to verify new employees. The bill also provides severe penalties, including monetary fines and licensure penalties if an employer fails to do so. The concern is that this bill as written, currently does not provide any cost analysis for small employers and how it will affect small businesses with less than 25 employees.

This bill has currently been passed in the House and has moved to the Senate.

Waiving Minimum Wage Requirements for Internships (HB 221/SB 1412)

This proposed bill provides that an employer does not have to pay state minimum wage for an employee in a structured work-study, internship, pre-apprenticeship, or similar work based learning program, if the employee voluntarily opts out of receiving the state minimum wage. Instead, the employee would get paid the federal minimum wage. This program is limited to nine months or two full semesters consisting of 15 credit hours.

Internship programs can be costly to employers, particularly paid internships. Because the state minimum wage is almost doubled the federal minimum wage, this bill affords employers to provide a paid internship at a lower rate, wherein previously it may have been unpaid, and thus, potentially expanding the qualified applicant pool available to employers.

Providing Benefits for Independent Contractors and Sole Proprietors (HB 1431/SB 604)

This proposed bill would authorize hiring parties to make voluntary contributions to portable benefit accounts for independent contractors and sole proprietors. While there are a lot of questions of how this would actually work, one concern from an employer perspective is that the proposed law may inadvertently misclassify independent contractors, such as the gig workers, into employees. While the bill attempts to provide protections to the employer in this regard, such protections do not extend to the federal level and essentially would be meaningless until a similar bill is passed at the federal level.

Posting Workforce Notice Requirements Online (HB 1495/SB 1698)

In the days of hybrid and remote work, gone are the days where employees gather by the water cooler and looked at the bulletin board for important notices. This proposed bill authorizes employers to post specific notices on the internet or intranet in a manner that is accessible to employees instead of a physical location in the office.

However, currently, as written, there is one notice that must be accessible to the general public where an employer who employes less than four employees is permitted by law to elect not to secure workers compensation, to post the same on the internet for the general public. Concerns regarding this mandatory requirement include that many small employers do not have a website and it may deter applicants from applying.

Gender Identity Employment Practices Regarding the Use of Pronouns (HB 641/SB 1642)

This proposed bill is 2026’s version of the “Stop Woke Act.” The proposed bill prohibits public sector employees from being required to use certain pronouns or requiring an employer to use the pronoun that does not correspond to the employee’s biological sex. This bill would prohibit adverse personnel action on the basis of gender ideology and provide remedies and attorney fees.

A concern is this bill may create conflicting legal obligations for employers pursuant to local ordinances and federal law.

Employer Immunity from Civil Liability if Employee Using Marijuana (HB 689/SB 1702)

This proposed bill provides employers with immunity from civil liability for actions taken against current or prospective employees based upon possession or use of marijuana in the workplace if the possession or use of marijuana occurs on the workplace site, the use of marijuana impairs the employee’s ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities, or the employee tests positive for marijuana upon submitting to a drug test administered in accordance with Florida Statutes.

Concerns with this bill as written is that it is unclear what impairment constitutes as “impairs” is not defined and it could conflict with other laws.

Stay tuned and visit the RumbergerKirk insights page for updates of these proposed bills and what employers should know if any should become law.