Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unpaid Leave Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee tweaks unpaid‑leave bill, debates bereavement limits and documentation
Summary
Lawmakers discussed multiple amendments to an unpaid leave bill — including narrowing loco parentis language, allowing employers to request documentation, and limiting bereavement to five consecutive workdays (up to two weeks total) — and asked staff to produce a revised draft before a planned vote.
The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on April 30 debated amendments to an unpaid leave measure that would add or clarify bereavement, safe leave and related provisions.
Committee members sought language changes intended to balance protections for employees with operational concerns for small employers and asked legislative counsel and advocates to produce a revised draft before the committee reconvened.
Sophie Sodatni of the Office of Legislative Counsel walked members through the proposed amendments and technical language. She summarized one draft change on notice requirements: "When an employee gives notice to an employer about the intent to take leave, they would provide information on the date the leave is expected to commence, the estimated duration of the leave, and then adding in that if the leave is for a family member, documentation identifying the qualifying family relationship." Committee members agreed the ability to request documentation should be permissive — employers "may" request rather than "shall" require — and that self‑attestation should remain an acceptable form of documentation under safe‑leave rules when survivors of violence are involved.
Senators debated changes to the bill's loco parentis definition. One amendment would remove a sentence stating "financial support is not a requirement for this relationship," a change some committee members supported as clarifying the scope of caregiving relationships; others said the sentence helped capture nonfinancial caregiving and urged caution about narrowing the definition.
Bereavement provisions drew extended discussion. The chamber's proposal, reflected in one amendment, would shorten a consecutive leave limit from two weeks to five workdays for small employers; the committee discussed compromise language allowing up to two weeks total but capping consecutive time off (for example, no more than five consecutive workdays). Committee members and witnesses argued for flexibility in cases that require recurring trips, court appearances or estate administration.
Charlie Glisserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, urged the committee to preserve flexibility for people affected by domestic violence or traumatic fatalities: "I would urge the committee to consider situations like that and the flexibility, that surviving family members need, to address the range of horrible situations that happen, when a loved one is gone." Several advocates and lawmakers said safe‑leave provisions should remain available without onerous documentation requirements.
Representative Emily Krasnow described personal experience with bereavement and said she supported the bill and the committee's effort to find middle ground: "I strongly believe in compromise, and I believe that including these provisions is still a very strong step forward." Timothy Agree of the Vermont Community Coalition noted aligning definitions with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act: "Including those, in Vermont, would bring us in line with the federal FMLA statute."
No final amendments were adopted on the floor of the committee session. The chair asked Sophie Sodatni and advocates to coordinate on a revised draft that would: (1) clarify that employers may request documentation identifying the qualifying family relationship (with self‑attestation allowed under safe‑leave provisions), (2) limit bereavement to up to five consecutive workdays with an allowance of up to two weeks total over the statutory period, and (3) evaluate whether safe‑leave language should explicitly account for death resulting from domestic violence. The committee planned to reconvene after a short break and attempt to vote if a revised draft is ready.
Background: The bill includes multiple unpaid‑leave provisions intended to expand protections for workers, harmonize certain definitions and ensure bereavement and safe‑leave protections are accessible across family types. Lawmakers and stakeholders traded off employer operational concerns against employees' needs in crisis, with committee staff drafting compromise language to reflect those tradeoffs.
Next steps: Legislative counsel and advocates will prepare a revised draft for committee review; the committee indicated a possible short‑term vote if staff can circulate the revised language before members return.
