Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unpaid Leave Job Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews proposed amendment to H.461 that would narrow job-protection for employees on unpaid leave
Summary
Committee members reviewed a proposed amendment to H.461 (expanding unpaid leave access) that would allow employers to hire permanent replacements if they cannot find a temporary worker, potentially weakening job-protection on return from leave. Legislative counsel and staff discussed statutory exceptions and federal compatibility concerns.
The House General & Housing Committee on March 20, 2025, discussed a proposed amendment to H.461, the bill on expanding employee access to unpaid leave. Committee members were briefed that the amendment—filed and placed on the calendar—would broaden an existing statutory exception that permits employers to replace employees who perform unique services and whose absence would cause substantial economic injury.
A committee member explained the amendment is intended to add a scenario: if an employer cannot find a temporary replacement willing to take the position during the leave, the employer could hire a permanent replacement after giving reasonable notice to the employee. Committee staff described that the change would remove the requirement that the position be "very unique" and instead would allow replacement where the employer demonstrates it could not secure a temporary employee and that hiring a permanent replacement was the only alternative to prevent "substantial and grievous economic injury." The amendment requires the employer to demonstrate that by "clear and convincing evidence," as the underlying statute already requires for the existing exception.
Committee members voiced concern that, as described, the amendment would weaken job protections for employees taking parental or medical leave. One member summarized, "So this amendment...expands the exemption...it does weaken that job protection that's currently in the statute." Staff noted the current statute already contains several exceptions to reinstatement, including layoffs unrelated to the leave and employees performing unique work; the proposed amendment would broaden those exceptions.
Members asked whether the proposed amendment conflicts with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), noting Vermont law can be more protective but not contradictory to federal law. Legislative staff said they would follow up to determine compatibility with federal law.
Logistics: the amendment was placed on the notice calendar (page 923 of the day's calendar was cited in committee discussion), a straw poll had been scheduled to accommodate timing and the committee planned to hear from the amendment's proponent, Anne Donahue, after a joint assembly. No vote on the amendment occurred during the March 20 session.
Committee members stressed they wanted bill reporter Ashley to review the amendment text and that additional briefings and testimony would be scheduled before any committee decision.
