Congress has moved to end seasonal time changes. The direction it chooses will reshape workplace injury patterns and the compensability disputes that follow.
For the first time since the Nixon administration, Congress is genuinely close to ending the twice-yearly clock change. On July 14, 2026, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 139, the Sunshine Protection Act, by a vote of 308 to 117. The bill would make daylight saving time (DST) permanent nationwide, and it now sits before the Senate.
Five days earlier, a bipartisan pair of House members introduced the competing approach. H.R. 9638, the Sunshine for Our Kids Act of 2026, would repeal daylight saving time altogether and establish permanent standard time, allowing individual states to opt into DST if they choose.
Both bills end the switch. They point in opposite directions. And for workers' compensation practitioners, that difference is not academic. It determines whether millions of American workers will begin their shifts in daylight or in darkness for the whole of every winter, and that determination will show up in claim volume, in injury severity, and in the litigated question of what arises out of and in the course of employment.
The clock-change debate has been framed as a lifestyle question. For the workers' compensation system, it is an exposure question.
What The Evidence Actually Shows
The proposition that clock changes injure workers is not contested. It is one of the better-documented findings in occupational safety research.
The foundational study is Barnes and Wagner's 2009 analysis in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The researchers examined Mine Safety and Health Administration injury reports from 1983 through 2006, a dataset covering hundreds of thousands of incidents in an industry where every injury must be investigated and reported by federal mandate. On the Monday immediately following the spring transition to daylight saving time, injuries rose 5.7 percent above the baseline Monday average. More significantly for the compensation system, the injuries sustained on that day were more severe: workdays lost to those injuries increased by roughly 68 percent. The mechanism was sleep. Workers slept approximately 40 minutes less on the night of the spring transition.
The fall transition produced no comparable spike. Gaining an hour does not generate the same physiological debt as losing one.
Related research documents parallel effects outside the workplace. Fatal motor vehicle crashes rise roughly six percent in the week following the spring change, concentrated in the dark morning commute hours. These are not incidental to workers' compensation. They implicate the traveling employee, the special mission, and the employer-controlled parking area, all of which remain heavily litigated boundaries.
Where The Medical Consensus Points
Nearly every organization with subject-matter expertise in sleep and circadian biology supports permanent standard time, not permanent DST.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine published its position statement in 2020 and strengthened it in 2023, concluding that the United States should eliminate seasonal time changes in favor of permanent standard time as the option best aligned with human circadian biology. The statement has been endorsed by more than twenty organizations, including the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the National Safety Council. The American Medical Association, the National Sleep Foundation, the Sleep Research Society, and the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms have adopted parallel positions. Following the House vote, the AASM publicly opposed the Sunshine Protection Act and endorsed the competing standard time bill.
The physiological argument is straightforward. The suprachiasmatic nucleus, the body's master clock, entrains to morning light. Under permanent DST, winter sunrise in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, Denver, San Francisco, and Tampa would fall after 8:15 a.m. By one calculation, the share of the urban population experiencing a post-8:00 a.m. sunrise on the winter solstice would jump from roughly 13 percent under the current system to roughly 87 percent under permanent DST.
That is the exposure. Not a single disruptive Monday each March, but a structural condition affecting every winter morning shift, indefinitely.
The Employer And Insurer Case For DST
The argument for permanent daylight saving time is not frivolous, and practitioners should understand it before advising clients.
Proponents in Congress emphasize that year-round DST would boost economic activity, extend usable evening daylight for construction, landscaping, delivery, and outdoor trades, and reduce evening-commute crashes and street crime. Retail and recreation industries have long supported it. The House sponsors framed the bill as improving public safety on the strength of the evening-daylight argument.
There is a genuine empirical dispute here. Evening light does reduce evening crashes. The counterargument is that the corresponding morning darkness moves the risk rather than eliminating it, and moves it into the hours when the workforce is least alert and most concentrated on the roads. The 1974 natural experiment is instructive: Congress enacted permanent DST in January 1974 and repealed it within ten months, after public support collapsed from 79 percent to 42 percent in two months amid reports of children walking to school in darkness. No one systematically tracked health or injury outcomes at the time.
Consequences For Workers' Compensation Claims
Whichever direction Congress chooses, the practical effects on claims practice fall into identifiable categories.
1. Claim frequency and seasonal distribution
Under permanent DST, the annual March injury spike disappears, but morning-hours risk redistributes across the entire winter. Carriers and self-insureds accustomed to a single predictable anomaly will instead face a diffuse seasonal elevation that is harder to detect in loss runs and harder to price. Under permanent standard time, both the spike and the winter-morning shift are removed, which is why the sleep medicine organizations regard it as the safer option.
2. Arising out of and in the course of employment
Darker morning commutes strain the going-and-coming rule at exactly its most contested edges. In New Jersey, the premises rule of N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 was narrowly construed in Hersh v. County of Morris, 217 N.J. 236 (2014), where the Supreme Court denied benefits to an employee struck by a vehicle crossing a public street between an employer-rented garage and her office, because the employer neither owned nor controlled the route. The Legislature responded in 2022 with S771, amending Section 36 to extend compensability to parking areas provided or designated by the employer, with employment commencing on arrival at the parking area.
That amendment matters considerably more in a world of 8:15 a.m. winter sunrises. Slip, trip, and fall claims in dark employer-designated lots, and pedestrian-strike claims in the ingress and egress zone, will increase in both frequency and litigated intensity. Practitioners should expect renewed disputes over what constitutes a designated parking area and where the compensable zone begins.
3. The special mission and traveling employee doctrines
Employees dispatched before dawn, or required to travel during newly dark morning hours, present the classic special mission fact pattern. In New Jersey, the special mission exception permits compensation where the employee is required to be away from the conventional place of employment and is actually engaged in the direct performance of employment duties. Expanded morning darkness enlarges the population of workers whose ordinary travel begins to look like a compensable work risk.
4. Causation and apportionment in fatigue-related injuries
Fatigue is a notoriously difficult causal element to prove. It leaves no diagnostic marker, and respondents routinely argue that sleep deprivation is a personal-risk factor outside the employment relationship. The Barnes and Wagner data, and the circadian literature that has accumulated since, give petitioners a population-level evidentiary basis for arguing that a statutorily imposed clock regime is a condition of the employment environment rather than a personal lifestyle choice. Expect expert testimony on circadian misalignment to appear more frequently in contested causation cases, particularly where the injury occurred in early-morning hours.
5. Shift work, occupational disease, and long-tail exposure
The strongest argument against permanent DST rests on analogy to shift work, one of the most extensively studied occupational exposures, and one repeatedly associated with adverse metabolic, cardiovascular, and carcinogenic outcomes. Permanent DST amounts to a mild, universal, permanent version of the same circadian strain. The dose is far smaller than overnight shift work, so the direction of harm is better established than its magnitude. Still, practitioners handling cardiovascular and metabolic occupational disease claims should watch this literature. If permanent DST is enacted and the epidemiological evidence develops, the argument that a legislatively mandated circadian misalignment contributed materially to a compensable occupational disease is not far-fetched.
6. Employer safety obligations and premium consequences
Employers retain their general duty obligations regardless of which bill passes. Under permanent DST, prudent risk management would include lighting audits of parking areas and walkways, reconsideration of shift start times for hazardous work, high-visibility apparel programs, and documented fatigue-management protocols. Failure to adapt after the hazard becomes foreseeable invites both increased claim exposure and, in jurisdictions recognizing intentional-wrong or safety-violation exceptions, arguments beyond the compensation bargain.
The Federalism Wrinkle
Neither bill produces national uniformity. The Sunshine Protection Act permits states to exempt themselves in favor of standard time. The Sunshine for Our Kids Act makes standard time the default while permitting states to opt into DST. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 260a, states may already exempt themselves from DST, which is why Hawaii and most of Arizona observe standard time year-round.
The likely result under either bill is a patchwork. For multi-state employers, and for claims involving interstate travel, that patchwork raises practical questions about shift scheduling, jurisdictional filing under conflicting state acts, and the determination of when a work period began or ended for employees crossing state lines during a shift. Nearly twenty states have already enacted contingent legislation to adopt year-round DST upon federal authorization, which means the map could reconfigure quickly.
Practice Points
• Monitor the Senate. H.R. 139 stalled in prior Congresses over precisely the morning-darkness concern now raised by the competing bill. Senate action is the operative variable.
• Audit lighting now. Employer-designated parking areas and walkways are the most predictable source of new claims under permanent DST, and in New Jersey the 2022 amendment to Section 36 has already expanded that exposure.
• Preserve the fatigue record. In early-morning injury cases, document shift start time, sunrise time, ambient lighting, and sleep history contemporaneously. Reconstructing these facts later is difficult.
• Reassess reserves seasonally. If permanent DST is enacted, historical loss data keyed to a single March anomaly will understate a diffuse winter-long elevation.
• Track the medical literature. The occupational disease implications of permanent circadian misalignment are unsettled, and the evidentiary landscape will develop after enactment, not before.
Conclusion
The strongest consensus in this debate is the one nobody is arguing about: the twice-yearly switch causes measurable, repeated harm to workers, and it should end. On that, Congress, the medical organizations, and the public agree.
The disagreement is over direction, and the medical and circadian science points one way while the House has voted the other. For the workers' compensation system, the direction is the whole question. Permanent standard time removes the exposure. Permanent daylight saving time converts a sharp annual spike into a chronic seasonal condition, and shifts a meaningful share of the American workforce into winter mornings that begin before sunrise.
The Senate will decide which. Practitioners should prepare for either.
Sources
1. Barnes, C.M. & Wagner, D.T., Changing to Daylight Saving Time Cuts Into Sleep and Increases Workplace Injuries, 94 J. Applied Psychol. 1305 (2009). https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl9451317.pdf
2. American Psychological Association, press release on Barnes & Wagner (Sept. 2009). https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/09/daylight-injury
3. Rishi, M.A., et al., Permanent Standard Time Is the Optimal Choice for Health and Safety: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Position Statement, 20 J. Clinical Sleep Med. 121 (2024). https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.10898
4. American Academy of Sleep Medicine, statement opposing House passage of the Sunshine Protection Act (July 2026). https://aasm.org/aasm-opposes-sunshine-protection-act-2026/
5. H.R. 139, Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, 119th Cong. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/139
6. H.R. 9638, Sunshine for Our Kids Act of 2026, 119th Cong. (text). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9638/text
7. GovTrack, H.R. 9638 legislative status. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr9638
8. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, House Passes Legislation to Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent (July 2026). https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/house-passes-legislation-to-make-daylight-saving-time-permanent
9. NBC News, House passes Trump-backed bill that would make daylight saving time permanent (July 14, 2026). https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-passes-bill-daylight-saving-time-permanent-sunshine-protection-rcna587531
10. The Hill, Standard time could become permanent in US under new bill, with some exceptions (July 2026). https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5965517-standard-time-could-become-permanent-in-us-under-new-bill-with-some-exceptions/
11. Sharkey, K. & Wallace, K., Ending Clock Changes. But Which Direction Should We Reset the Clock?, Your Local Epidemiologist (July 22, 2026). https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/ending-clock-changes-but-which-direction
12. United States Studies Centre, Daylight Savers or Night Wasters: The Case Against Permanent Daylight Saving Time in the United States. https://www.ussc.edu.au/daylight-savers-or-night-wasters-the-case-against-permanent-daylight-saving-time-in-the-united-states
13. American Medical Association, Sleep Doctors' Orders: Use Standard Time 365 Days a Year. https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/prevention-wellness/sleep-doctors-orders-use-standard-time-365-days-year
14. SHRM, Workplace Injuries Spike After Daylight Saving Time Change. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/risk-management/workplace-injuries-spike-daylight-saving-time-change
15. Uniform Time Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 260a. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/260a
16. N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 (premises rule, as amended by S771, L. 2021, c. 386). https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-34/section-34-15-36/
17. New Jersey Department of Labor, Compilation of New Jersey Workers' Compensation Appellate Decisions. https://www.nj.gov/labor/workerscompensation/assets/PDFs/Forms/wc_research.pdf
Cases Cited
18. Hersh v. County of Morris, 217 N.J. 236 (2014). Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=6320876447548617297 | Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2014/a-59-12.html
19. Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89 (1988). Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Livingstone+v.+Abraham+%26+Straus+111+N.J.+89
20. Novis v. Rosenbluth Travel, 138 N.J. 92 (1994). Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Novis+v.+Rosenbluth+Travel+138+N.J.+92
21. Serrano v. Apple Container, 236 N.J. Super. 216 (App. Div. 1989), certif. denied, 121 N.J. 591 (1990). Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Serrano+v.+Apple+Container+236+N.J.+Super.+216
22. Sager v. O.A. Peterson Construction Co., 182 N.J. 156 (2004). Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sager+v.+O.A.+Peterson+Construction+182+N.J.+156
23. Watson v. Nassau Inn, 74 N.J. 155 (1977). Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Watson+v.+Nassau+Inn+74+N.J.+155
Related Prior Posts
Gelman, J.L., Clocks and Dangers: Daylight Savings and Workplace Injuries, Workers' Compensation Blog. https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/
About the Author
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). Firm bio: gelmans.com.
Blog: Workers' Compensation
LinkedIn: JonGelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Author: Workers' Compensation Law West-Thomson-Reuters
Blue Sky: jongelman@bsky.social
Substack: https://jongelman.substack.com/
© 2026 Jon L Gelman. All rights reserved.
Attorney Advertising
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment