Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Logan unveils bill to let private relators sue over Vermont employment-law violations
Summary
H.336 would allow whistleblowers, employees, or representative organizations to sue employers on behalf of the commissioner of labor and direct proceeds to enforcement and a new outreach fund.
Representative Kate Logan introduced H.336 on April 8 to create a relator-based enforcement mechanism for employment-law violations in Title 21. "This bill, H.336, aims to extend a legal concept, ... that is a provision of the False Claims Act, and use it in the employment law context," Logan said.
Under the proposal, an aggrieved employee, a representative organization (for example, a union or worker-advocacy nonprofit), or a whistleblower could bring a civil action against an employer on behalf of the commissioner of labor if the commissioner declines to pursue an enforcement action. Logan said the model is similar to California’s decades-old statute and would allow relators to seek the same penalties and relief available to the commissioner.
Logan outlined the bill’s key mechanics: a relator would file notice with the Department of Labor and the department would have 60 days (with possible extensions) to decide whether to take the case; if the commissioner declines, the relator could proceed in civil court. If a relator succeeds where the commissioner did not bring the case, Logan said 30% of proceeds would be awarded to the relator and 70% would go to the Department of Labor; if the commissioner elects to pursue the case after a relator brings it, 20% of proceeds would go to the relator and 80% to the department.
H.336 also would establish a Community Outreach and Workforce Education Special Fund funded by a portion of recovered proceeds and by donations; the sponsor said 25% of funds awarded to the Department of Labor under the bill would seed that fund. The bill contains procedural provisions, a statute of limitations, anti‑retaliation protections, and requirements for relator filings.
Committee members asked whether the actions would be brought in civil (superior) court and how other states have implemented similar models; Logan said California’s experience informed the draft and that other states are at various stages of adopting similar rules. No committee vote was recorded during the introduction.
Ending: The committee reviewed mechanics and asked staff questions about implementation; sponsor said the bill is intended to augment Department of Labor capacity and to create public outreach resources.
