Committee hears introduction of bill to bar discrimination based on immunization status

Representative Mark Higley introduced a bill identified in committee as H.860 seeking to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations on the basis of an individual’s immunization or vaccination status.

The bill was presented during a House General & Housing committee meeting. "The bill proposes to prohibit discrimination in employment and public accommodations on the basis of an individual's immunization status," Representative Mark Higley said while introducing the measure, which he characterized as a carryover item he has taken up after prior sponsors left office.

Why it matters: The proposal would add "vaccination status" to a range of nondiscrimination provisions the committee already enforces, including state standards for public accommodations, unfair housing practices and unlawful employment practices. Higley said he raised the bill because of employment and housing impacts he traced to pandemic-era vaccine mandates and related separations from employment.

Higley cited numbers from other jurisdictions and a state bulletin while explaining the bill’s rationale. He read a Vermont Department of Labor bulletin dated Dec. 21, 2021, saying, "an employee that is terminated for failure to comply with a vaccine mandate will not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits based on that separation. If they quit, they will not be eligible as well," and referenced reports of workers leaving or being dismissed in other states during the pandemic. He also said that more than 8,000 troops were discharged from the military between 2021 and 2023 for COVID-19 vaccination status and that some of those personnel were later reinstated with back pay.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the bill’s scope. One representative asked how the proposal would reconcile with childhood vaccine requirements for school attendance; Higley responded that those are separate matters and noted past state changes that removed philosophical and religious exemptions would likely need a court challenge to be revisited. Another member asked whether the bill would cover mask-wearing; Higley said, "No. The bill is about vaccination status. It just adds the words vaccination status to a number of anti-discrimination provisions."

No formal vote or committee action occurred; the bill was introduced for consideration and the committee recessed for scheduling reasons. Committee leadership signaled the meeting would reconvene when the next sponsor was available.

Ending: The bill remains at the introduction stage; the committee did not set a follow-up date during the session recorded in the transcript.