Right to Disconnect Laws: Where They Exist and What US Employers Owe
No state and no federal law in the United States gives employees a right to disconnect from work communications after hours. California's AB 2751, the bill that produced most of the headlines, died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2024 and has not been reintroduced. Bills were pending in New Jersey, Michigan and Kentucky during 2026, none had passed a chamber by October, and the sites claiming that four states or that California and New York have such a law in force are wrong. What US employers do owe is pay: under 29 CFR 785.11, work the employer knows about is work time whether or not it was requested, so a non-exempt employee answering email at 10 p.m. is on the clock.
This page tracks the US bills with their current status, sets out the pay rule that applies now, compares the laws in France, Australia, Portugal, Belgium, Spain and Ontario that the bills copy, and gives the survey data on after-hours work with sample sizes. It closes with a policy outline for employers who want to limit after-hours contact without waiting for a statute, and a note on what the tools can and cannot do.
The US position in 2026
A right to disconnect, in the sense the term carries in Europe and Australia, is a legal entitlement to ignore work calls, emails and messages outside working hours without discipline. As of October 28, 2026 no US jurisdiction has enacted one. A law firm survey in March 2025 found none, and nothing has passed since. The confusion comes from three sources: California's 2024 bill, which was widely reported when introduced and quietly when it died; a 2018 New York City Council bill that stalled and is still cited as pending; and content farms that describe bills as laws. The honest summary is that the United States regulates after-hours work through wage law, not through a right to refuse.
The bills, state by state
| Jurisdiction | Bill | What it would do | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | AB 2751 (Haney), 2024 | Add Labor Code 1198.2 requiring every employer to adopt a written policy giving employees the right to ignore communications outside working hours, except for emergencies and schedule changes within 24 hours of a shift; three or more violations would be a pattern enforced by the Labor Commissioner with a $100 civil penalty | Passed the Assembly Labor Committee April 17, 2024; held under submission in Assembly Appropriations in May 2024 and died with the session. Opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and SHRM. Not reintroduced in the 2025-26 session as far as we could find. |
| New Jersey | A-4852 (Simmons), introduced September 23, 2024; succeeded by A3416, introduced January 13, 2026 | Require employers with 50 or more employees to adopt a policy on after-hours communications and bar retaliation for not responding | A-4852 died with the 2024-25 session on January 12, 2026; A3416 was in committee with no hearing reported by October 2026 |
| Michigan | SB 948, Workplace Employee Boundaries Act (Geiss), introduced May 7, 2026 | Bar employers from requiring responses to work communications outside scheduled hours, with a retaliation ban and civil penalties up to $500 per violation; exceptions for declared emergencies and paid on-call time | Senate Labor Committee hearing in June 2026; no vote reported |
| Kentucky | HB 341 (Willner), introduced January 13, 2026 | Similar policy requirement | Referred to the Economic Development and Workforce Investment Committee January 21, 2026; no further action, so dead for the 2026 session |
| New York City | Council bill introduced by Rafael Espinal, 2018 | Bar private employers with 10 or more employees from requiring employees to check or respond to electronic communications outside work hours; $250 penalties | Never came to a vote; last activity around 2021. Often cited as pending; it is not. |
| Federal | None | No bill has been introduced in Congress |
Two features of the US bills matter if one ever passes. They are policy mandates, not bans: the employer must adopt and follow a written policy, and the penalty attaches to ignoring the policy rather than to any single after-hours message. And they exempt emergencies and scheduling, which is where most after-hours contact in hourly workplaces actually happens. A California-style law would change the paperwork for most employers more than the practice.
What US law already requires: pay for after-hours work
The Fair Labor Standards Act does not care whether work was assigned. Under 29 CFR 785.11, "work not requested but suffered or permitted is work time", and under 785.12 that includes work performed away from the premises or at home: if the employer knows or has reason to believe the work is being done, the time counts. 29 CFR 785.13 puts the duty on management to stop work it does not want performed; a rule against after-hours email is not enough if managers keep sending messages that get answered. For a non-exempt employee, then, reading and replying to work email at night is compensable, and if it pushes the week past 40 hours it is overtime at one and a half times the regular rate. The federal de minimis doctrine (29 CFR 785.47) excuses only insubstantial, irregular periods that cannot practically be recorded, and California rejected it altogether in Troester v. Starbucks (July 26, 2018), where four to ten minutes a day of off-the-clock closing work, $102.67 over 17 months, was held compensable.
Exempt salaried employees have no overtime entitlement, which is why the US gap exists: nothing in federal law limits how much an exempt employee can be contacted or expected to respond. The practical rules for employers are therefore: non-exempt staff must record and be paid for after-hours work, so either stop the contact or pay for it; exempt staff can be contacted, and any limit is a matter of policy. Our overtime laws by state page covers the daily overtime rules that can also be triggered by a late-night session, and the working hours statistics page has the hours data.
Countries with a right to disconnect
| Country | Law | In force | What it requires | Enforcement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| France | Law 2016-1088 of August 8, 2016 (El Khomri law), now Labor Code L2242-17 | January 1, 2017 | Companies with 50 or more employees must negotiate annually on the right to disconnect and the regulation of digital tools; absent agreement, the employer issues a charter after consulting the works council | No specific sanction; failure to negotiate is a labor law breach and courts have awarded damages in individual cases |
| Australia | Fair Work Act section 333M (Closing Loopholes No. 2 Act 2024) | August 26, 2024 for employers with 15 or more employees; August 26, 2025 for small business | An employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact outside working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable, considering the reason for contact, the disruption, compensation for availability, the employee's role and personal circumstances | Fair Work Commission can issue stop orders; breach of an order carries civil penalties |
| Portugal | Law 83/2021, published December 6, 2021 | January 1, 2022 | Employers must refrain from contacting workers during rest periods except in force majeure; applies to remote work and beyond; small-employer exemption for some provisions | Administrative fines as a serious offense |
| Belgium | Law of February 2022 (public sector, February 1, 2022); Labor Deal law of October 2022 (private sector) | April 1, 2023 for private employers with 20 or more employees | Collective agreement or work rules must set the practical arrangements for not being reachable outside working hours and guidance on using digital tools | Through labor inspection and works councils |
| Spain | Organic Law 3/2018 on data protection and digital rights, article 88; Law 10/2021 on remote work | December 2018; July 2021 | Workers have a right to digital disconnection; employers must adopt an internal policy after consulting worker representatives, including training on reasonable use of technology | Labor inspectorate |
| Ontario, Canada | Working for Workers Act, 2021 (Bill 27), amending the Employment Standards Act | Policies due June 2, 2022, then by March 1 each year | Employers with 25 or more employees on January 1 must have a written policy on disconnecting from work and give it to employees within 30 days; the Ministry of Labor says the law creates no new right, only the policy duty | Employment standards officers |
| Ireland | Code of Practice on the Right to Disconnect, Workplace Relations Commission, April 2021 | April 1, 2021 | Right not to routinely work outside normal hours, right not to be penalized for refusing, duty to respect others' right to disconnect | Not binding, but admissible in proceedings under the Working Time Act |
| Kenya | Employment (Amendment) Bill 2022 | Not in force | Would bar employer contact outside working hours except by agreement, with compensation | Passed the Senate August 1, 2023; pending in the National Assembly |
The models differ in kind. France, Belgium, Spain and Ontario impose a process: negotiate or write a policy. Portugal imposes a duty on the employer not to make contact. Australia alone gives the employee a personal right to refuse, tested for reasonableness case by case, and its first year produced a handful of Fair Work Commission applications rather than a flood. Ireland's code is guidance. The US bills copy the Ontario and France approach, which is the least demanding.
How much after-hours work there is
- Pew Research Center, "How Americans View Their Jobs" (March 30, 2023; fieldwork February 6 to 12, 2023; 5,188 employed adults who are not self-employed): 55% respond to work emails or messages outside normal hours at least sometimes, 28% often or extremely often, 33% rarely or never. The often-or-more share was 39% of upper-income workers, 26% of middle-income and 20% of lower-income, and 41% of postgraduates against 23% of those with some college or less. The question asked about responding, not checking.
- Microsoft Work Trend Index, "Breaking down the infinite workday" (June 17, 2025; Microsoft 365 telemetry to February 15, 2025 excluding education and EU tenants, plus a 31,000-person survey across 31 markets): 40% of people online at 6 a.m. are reading email; 29% of active workers are back in their inbox by 10 p.m.; meetings after 8 p.m. rose 16% year over year; the average worker sends or receives more than 50 messages outside core hours; nearly 20% of weekend workers check email before noon on Saturday and Sunday. The figures are global, not US-only.
- Slack Workforce Index (December 5, 2023; 10,333 desk workers surveyed August 24 to September 15, 2023): 37% log on outside standard hours at least weekly, and 54% of those say they feel pressured to. Workers who feel obligated to work after hours reported productivity scores 20% lower than those who log off, and twice the rate of burnout. It is a correlation in survey data, not a causal finding, and it concerns pressured after-hours work rather than any after-hours work.
- Working time: the Bureau of Labor Statistics' American Time Use Survey and the Current Population Survey show average weekly hours for full-time workers steady around 42 for two decades; after-hours messaging redistributes work across the day more than it adds hours, which is consistent with Microsoft's "infinite workday" framing.
Figures to avoid: the "40% of US workers check email at 6 a.m." line is Microsoft's global telemetry restated as a US statistic; Gallup burnout percentages are routinely attached to after-hours work without any Gallup finding that links them; and vendor surveys of a few hundred respondents are presented as national data. Our workplace stress statistics page covers the burnout data with its sources.
Writing a disconnect policy without a law
Nothing stops a US employer adopting the policy the bills would require, and several large employers have. A policy that works contains:
- Scope: which roles it covers and which are excluded because they are on call, with the on-call compensation stated.
- Defined non-working hours: by schedule for hourly staff, by a stated window (for example 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. local time and weekends) for salaried staff, with time zones addressed for distributed teams.
- What counts as an emergency: a short list, such as an outage, a safety incident or a client deadline moved by the client, with a named person who may invoke it.
- A sender rule, not just a reader rule: managers schedule messages to arrive in working hours and do not expect replies outside them. The Ontario experience is that policies aimed only at recipients change nothing.
- The non-exempt rule: any after-hours work that does happen is recorded and paid, and managers are told that an unanswered message is the intended outcome, not a performance issue.
- No retaliation: an explicit statement that not responding outside working hours will not be held against anyone in reviews or assignments.
- A review date and a channel for employees to report pressure to respond.
Our handbook acknowledgment template covers how to document receipt, and the focus blocks guide covers the daytime half of the same problem.
What Slack, Teams and Outlook can enforce
The collaboration tools offer notification controls, not legal protection, and they work on the recipient's device rather than the sender's behavior. Slack lets each user set a recurring Do Not Disturb schedule and lets workspace admins set a default schedule for all members; messages still arrive, they just do not alert. Microsoft Teams and Outlook mobile have quiet time settings, and Intune administrators can push quiet-time policies to managed iOS and Android devices so that notifications pause outside set hours. Outlook's delay delivery and scheduled send let managers write at night and deliver in the morning, which is the single most effective practice. Gmail has the same scheduled send. None of these tools records whether an employee worked, so for non-exempt staff the timekeeping duty remains, and an employer that monitors devices should check that its monitoring is also paused outside hours or disclosed; our employee monitoring laws by state page covers the notice rules.
Key takeaways
- No US state or federal right to disconnect law exists as of October 28, 2026. California's AB 2751 died in Appropriations in 2024; bills in New Jersey (A3416), Michigan (SB 948) and Kentucky (HB 341) were pending or stalled in 2026.
- US law already requires pay for after-hours work by non-exempt employees: work the employer knows about is work time under 29 CFR 785.11, and California rejects the de minimis excuse (Troester v. Starbucks, 2018).
- Exempt salaried employees have no legal limit on after-hours contact in the United States; any limit is policy.
- France (2017), Portugal (2022), Belgium (2022 to 2023), Spain (2018) and Ontario (2022) require negotiation or a written policy; Australia (2024) alone gives employees a right to refuse unreasonable contact; Ireland's code is non-binding.
- Pew found 55% of US workers respond to work messages outside hours at least sometimes and 28% often (February 2023, n=5,188); Microsoft's global telemetry shows 29% of active workers back in email by 10 p.m. (2025).
- Slack's 2023 survey linked feeling obligated to work after hours with 20% lower productivity scores and twice the burnout rate; it is a correlation.
- A policy that works binds senders as well as readers, defines emergencies narrowly, and pays non-exempt staff for any after-hours work that still happens.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a right to disconnect law in the United States?
No. As of October 2026 no state or federal law gives employees a right to ignore work communications after hours. California's AB 2751 died in committee in 2024, and bills in New Jersey, Michigan and Kentucky had not passed in 2026. The 2018 New York City bill never came to a vote.
What happened to California's right to disconnect bill?
AB 2751, introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney in 2024, passed the Assembly Labor Committee on April 17, 2024 and was then held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in May 2024, which ended it for the session. It would have required a written policy and a $100 penalty for a pattern of violations. It has not been reintroduced.
Do US employers have to pay for after-hours emails?
For non-exempt employees, yes. Under 29 CFR 785.11 work the employer knows or has reason to know about is compensable even if not requested, and it counts toward overtime. Exempt salaried employees are not owed extra pay for after-hours work.
Can my employer require me to answer emails after hours?
In the United States, generally yes, subject to pay. There is no law barring the requirement. Non-exempt employees must be paid for the time; exempt employees can be required to respond as a condition of the job. Union contracts and employer policies may limit it.
Which countries have a right to disconnect?
France (since 2017), Spain (2018), Portugal (2022), Belgium (public sector 2022, private sector 2023), Australia (2024 and 2025) and Ontario, Canada (policy requirement since 2022). Ireland has a non-binding code of practice. Italy, Luxembourg and several Latin American countries have related provisions.
How does Australia's right to disconnect work?
Section 333M of the Fair Work Act, in force August 26, 2024 for larger employers and August 26, 2025 for small businesses, lets an employee refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact outside working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable, considering the reason for contact, the disruption caused, any compensation for availability and the employee's role. Disputes go to the Fair Work Commission, which can issue stop orders.
How many Americans respond to work messages after hours?
Pew Research Center's February 2023 survey of 5,188 employed adults found 55% respond to work emails or messages outside normal hours at least sometimes and 28% often or extremely often. Upper-income workers and postgraduates were most likely to do so.
Does working after hours reduce productivity?
Slack's Workforce Index (December 2023, 10,333 desk workers) found workers who feel obligated to work after hours scored 20% lower on productivity and reported twice the burnout rate of those who log off. The finding is correlational and applies to pressured after-hours work, not to all after-hours work.