Don’t STEAL Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to strengthen worker protections against wage theft by codifying a right to full compensation and imposing substantially harsher criminal and civil penalties on employers who violate wage laws.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 to establish a new 'Right to Full Compensation,' ensuring employees receive the highest applicable wage rate from their contract, collective bargaining agreement, or federal/state law. Crucially, it significantly increases criminal and civil penalties for willful wage theft, introducing potential imprisonment of up to 5 years for violations exceeding $1,000 and directing collected criminal fines to the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division for enforcement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is vital for combating pervasive wage theft, which costs American workers billions annually. They contend that current penalties are insufficient to deter employers from willfully withholding wages and that increased criminal penalties, including imprisonment, are necessary to hold egregious violators accountable and ensure economic justice for employees.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the proposed criminal penalties, particularly the potential for lengthy imprisonment, are overly severe and could disproportionately affect businesses, including small enterprises, for what might sometimes be unintentional errors in complex payroll systems. They may also assert that existing civil remedies are adequate and that criminalizing wage disputes could create an overly adversarial regulatory environment.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a), inserting new Section 8 into FLSA
Establishes a Right to Full Compensation
This provision amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to create a new Section 8, explicitly stating that employers must compensate employees at a rate that is not less than the greater of (A) the rate specified in any contract, collective bargaining agreement, or other employment agreement (as defined by the Secretary of Labor), or (B) the wage rate required under applicable Federal or State law. This right applies to employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision clarifies and strengthens worker protections by explicitly codifying the right to receive the highest applicable wage, preventing employers from exploiting ambiguities between different wage standards and ensuring workers are paid what they are truly owed.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that while the principle of fair compensation is accepted, this provision could add a layer of administrative complexity for employers who must meticulously navigate and compare multiple wage standards, potentially leading to inadvertent violations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the goal of robust employee compensation protections against potential increases in administrative and compliance burdens for employers.
Section 3(a), amending Section 16(a) of FLSA
Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Wage Theft
This section significantly increases criminal penalties for willful violations of FLSA sections related to wages, including the newly established 'Right to Full Compensation.' For unpaid wages or overtime exceeding $1,000, violators face fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. For amounts equal to or less than $1,000, penalties include Title 18 fines, imprisonment for up to 1 year, or both. The bill also specifies factors for courts to consider when determining fine amounts, such as the gravity of the violation, prior convictions, and business size.
Section 3(b) and (c), amending Section 16(b), (c), (e) of FLSA
Expanded Civil Penalties and Funding for Enforcement
This provision expands the scope of existing civil penalty provisions within FLSA Section 16 to explicitly include violations of the new Section 8 (Right to Full Compensation). Additionally, it directs all fines collected from the new criminal penalties (under subsection (a)(2)) to the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor. These dedicated funds are to be used specifically by the WHD to cover the costs of enforcing the wage-related sections of the FLSA, including the new Section 8.
This section states, 'Section 10 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 210) is repealed.' The current 29 U.S.C. 210 is titled 'Prohibited acts; prima facie evidence' and outlines specific unlawful acts under the FLSA and establishes rules for evidence in enforcement actions. Its repeal would remove statutory definitions of unlawful acts and evidentiary rules, which are foundational to FLSA enforcement.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This could be an oversight, a technical error in referencing the U.S. Code, or an attempt to subtly remove certain enforcement mechanisms under the guise of a 'conforming amendment.' If it refers to the current 29 U.S.C. 210, it would be highly problematic for a bill aiming to strengthen enforcement.
Case for: If 29 U.S.C. 210 refers to an obsolete or redundant section of the original FLSA that has been superseded or consolidated elsewhere in the U.S. Code, then its repeal would be a legitimate technical cleanup. However, this is not clear from the bill text's reference to the current U.S. Code.
Case against: If 29 U.S.C. 210 refers to the current 'Prohibited acts; prima facie evidence' section, its repeal would severely undermine the bill's stated purpose. It would remove key statutory definitions of unlawful acts and evidentiary rules, making it significantly harder for the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice to enforce wage theft laws, effectively gutting enforcement capabilities.
Estimated impact: Potentially catastrophic for FLSA enforcement, rendering the new penalties and rights difficult or impossible to enforce, if it removes key definitions of prohibited acts and evidentiary rules.
The new 'Right to Full Compensation' mandates that employers compensate employees at a rate not less than the greater of contractual rates or applicable federal/state law. Within the contractual rate clause, it specifies 'other employment agreement (as such term is defined by the Secretary)'. This delegates the authority to define 'employment agreement' to the Secretary of Labor.
Section 2(a), new Section 8(a)(1)(A)
Why it matters:Delegating definitions to an agency is a common legislative practice, allowing for flexibility and adaptation to evolving circumstances without requiring new legislation. However, it also grants significant power to the Secretary to shape the scope of what constitutes an 'employment agreement' for wage protection purposes.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this delegation allows the Department of Labor, as the expert agency, to develop a comprehensive and adaptable definition of 'employment agreement' that can keep pace with diverse and changing employment practices, ensuring the bill's protections remain relevant and effective.
Case against: Critics might contend that granting such broad definitional authority to an unelected official could lead to definitions that are either overly expansive or unduly restrictive, depending on the political leanings of the administration in power, potentially creating uncertainty for employers or limiting worker protections.
Estimated impact: The Secretary's definition of 'employment agreement' could significantly expand or limit the scope of the 'Right to Full Compensation,' affecting a wide range of workers and employers.