Compare UT HB 250 (2025) and UT HB 527 (2024)

The introduced text of these two bills, side by side, with the wording they share.

752 shared 8-word phrases found in the introduced text of these two bills.

This highlights wording the two bills share in their introduced text. A shared passage may include text that both bills quote from the same existing law, not only language either one drafted. A match shows that the texts overlap; it does not show who drafted a bill, and filing order alone does not show which bill copied which.

UT HB 250 (2025)UT HB 527 (2024)
H.B. 250 1 Public Employee Gender-specific Language Requirements 2025 GENERAL SESSION STATE OF UTAH Chief SponsorH.B. 527 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE GENDER-SPECIFIC LANGUAGE 2 REQUIREMENTS 3 2024 GENERAL SESSION 4 STATE OF UTAH 5 Chief Sponsor
LONG TITLE 4 General Description: 5 This bill prohibits certain employment action against a public employee. 6 Highlighted Provisions: 7 This bill: 8 ▸ prohibits the State Board of EducationLONG TITLE 9 General Description: 10 This bill prohibits certain employment action against a public employee. 11 Highlighted Provisions: 12 This bill: 13 < prohibits the State Board of Education
or a public employer 9 from taking disciplinary action against an employee for using gender-specific language 10 in certain circumstances; 11 ▸ requires a public employer that has a rule or policy requiring an employee to use 12 gender-specific language to accommodate another individual to exempt the employee 13 from disciplinary action in certain circumstances; and 14 ▸ makes technical changes. 15 Money Appropriated in this Bill: 16 None 17 Other Special Clausesor a public employer from taking 14 disciplinary action against an employee for using gender-specific language in 15 certain circumstances; 16 < requires a public employer that has a rule or policy requiring an employee to use 17 gender-specific language to accommodate another individual to exempt the 18 employee from disciplinary action in certain circumstances; and 19 < makes technical changes. 20 Money Appropriated in this Bill: 21 None 22 Other Special Clauses
Utah Code Annotated 1953 24 25 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: 26 Section 1. Section 53G-10-206 is amended to read: 27 53G-10-206 . Educational freedom. 28 (1) As used in this section: 29 (a)(i) "Administrative personnel" means any LEA or state board staff personnel who 30 have system-wide, LEA-wide, or school-wide functions and who perform 31 management activities, including: H.B. 250 01-16 15:03 32 (A) developing broad policies for LEA or state-level boards; and 33 (B) executing developed policies through the direction of personnel at any level 34 within the state or LEA. 35 (ii) "Administrative personnel" includes state, LEA, or school superintendents, 36 assistant…Utah Code Annotated 1953 29 30 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: 31 Section 1. Section 53G-10-206 is amended to read: 32 53G-10-206. Educational freedom. 33 (1) As used in this section: 34 (a) (i) "Administrative personnel" means any LEA or state board staff personnel who 35 have system-wide, LEA-wide, or school-wide functions and who perform management 36 activities, including: 37 (A) developing broad policies for LEA or state-level boards; and 38 (B) executing developed policies through the direction of personnel at any level within 39 the state or LEA. 40 (ii) "Administrative personnel" includes state, LEA, or school superintendents, 41 assistant superintendents, dep…
The state board and state superintendent may not develop or continue to use core 93 standards under Section 53E-3-301 or professional learning that are inconsistent with the 94 principles described in Subsection (2)(a). 95 Section 2. Section 67-21-3.3 is enacted to read: 96 67-21-3.3 . Gender-specific language preference -- Employer action. 97 (1) An employer may not pursue disciplinary action against an employeeThe state board and state superintendent may not develop or continue to use core 96 standards under Section 53E-3-301 or professional learning that are inconsistent with the 97 principles described in Subsection (2)(a). 98 Section 2. Section 67-21-3.3 is enacted to read: 99 67-21-3.3. Gender-specific language preference -- Employer action. 100 (1) An employer may not pursue disciplinary action against an employee
a) in good faith, uses a pronoun or other gender-specific language in relation to another - 3 - H.B. 250 01-16 15:03 100 individual that conflicts with the individual's personal gender-specific language 101 preference; or 102 (b) because of the employee's sincerely held religious or moral belief, uses a pronoun or 103 other gender-specific language in relation to another individual that conflicts with the 104 individual's personal gender-specific language preference. 105 (2) If an employer implements a rule or policy that requires an employee to use 106 gender-specific language to accommodate another individual's personal gender-specific 107 language preference, thea) in good faith, uses a pronoun or other gender-specific language in relation to 102 another individual that conflicts with the individual's personal gender-specific language 103 preference; or 104 (b) because of the employee's sincerely held religious or moral belief, uses a pronoun 105 or other gender-specific language in relation to another individual that conflicts with the 106 individual's personal gender-specific language preference. 107 (2) If an employer implements a rule or policy that requires an employee to use 108 gender-specific language to accommodate another individual's personal gender-specific 109 language preference, the
from disciplinary action an employee 109 described in Subsectionfrom disciplinary action an 110 employee described in Subsection
in writing of the exemptions described in this section. 111 Section 3. Effective Date. 112 This bill takes effect onin writing of the exemptions described in this section. 113 Section 3. Effective date. 114 This bill takes effect on