Families and Providers Clash Over Ending 14(c) Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities

The Labor Committee heard competing testimony on HB 5607, the proposal to eliminate the federal 14(c) subminimum wage practice for people with disabilities.

Bobby Berreault, an advocate testifying for the bill, said national investigations show many 14(c) workers earn far less than minimum wage. “This legalized form of discrimination is very problematic,” he said, adding data from other states that ended subminimum wages show employment rose for many adults with cognitive disabilities.

Several family members and day‑service providers pushed back. Lynelle Blanchette described her adult son’s work in a group supported employment program and said the commensurate wage and job coaching improved his behavior and independence: “Nick enjoys going to work every day and feels very proud of what he accomplishes,” she said. Providers including CUEN Employment Opportunities submitted numbers showing most program participants are receiving individualized time studies and that some contracted placements already pay well above minimum wage when they mirror prevailing‑wage federal or state contracts.

Beth Fisher, CEO of CUEN, told the committee that converting all special‑wage positions to full minimum wages overnight would create a roughly $100,000 annual cost for her organization alone and risk eliminating jobs unless the state phases in supports and funds employer training or subsidies for retention. “If the current policy were to be implemented, it would need to coincide with a more rapid phase‑in of meaningful alternatives,” Fisher testified.

Disability advocates and legal groups urged ending 14(c) as a policy goal but repeatedly recommended a transition path: phased timelines, an employer training/subsidy pool, data sharing, and clear alternatives for people who cannot immediately meet competitive employment requirements. Proponents of repeal said state planning and targeted funding can prevent job loss; opponents pressed for granular transition plans tied to available DDS and DOL supports.

No vote was taken. Committee members asked agencies for data on the number of 14(c) certificate holders, current wages, and estimates of transition costs.